Tasmanian Times

Article

Does perverted justice prevail in Australia’s deep south?

Book review by Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia

READ MORE HERE

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
444 Comments

444 Comments

  1. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    April 24, 2019 at 10:36 pm

    The missing blue rag

    From Andrew Urban’s blog:

    “The evidence includes the large DNA deposit matched to her, which is consistent with her statement that she vomited, which is also consistent with the blue rag found near the DNA deposit stained with vomit – and which mysteriously disappeared from the evidence log, as former detective Colin McLaren demonstrates to Bartlett with documents obtained under freedom of information.”

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/11/sue-neill-fraser-innocent-witness-vass-says-so-on-60-minutes/

    “I understand – possibly sourced from McLaren’s book – that samples from certain ‘vomit rags’ taken from the Four Winds are now missing, though I think that the actual rags might still be in the possession of the authorities. I believe that the defence sought to have them tested, though I have heard no mention of this having been done.”

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/07/sue-neill-fraser-evidence-went-missing/

    Hmm. I checked out the few crime scene photographs. I compared the crime scene photo 7 (the one that was ignored by McLaren) that was taken whilst the yacht was at it mooring in Sandy Bay with another crime scene photo that was taken later that day at the Constitution Dock.

    Guess what?

    The blue rag magically appeared in the second photograph but doesn’t show in the first photograph. Does this mean that some careless person left behind a blue rag on the walkway of yacht? Is that the reason the blue rag wasn’t in the evidence log? In other words, was it recognised by TasPol detectives or some forensic person that the blue rag wasn’t at the crime scene when cops boarded the yacht on the morning of 27th?

    Did our great ex-detective from Victoria check the crime scene photo 7, the very photo that also showed rope going from a winch on the main mast to the skylite hatch? Hmm. This is getting really amusing!

    I googled to see what was said about the blue rag in the Supreme Court. This is it:

    “Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates said photographs taken by police onboard the yacht while it was still moored near Marieville Esplanade did not show any rags.”

    https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/testing-times-as-convicted-killer-susan-neillfrasers-lastditch-appeal-returns-to-supreme-court/news-story/1613330ca23b6605e8d0502dcba89930

    There we go! Had McLaren looked at the crime scene photo 7 he most likely wouldn’t have invented a two men theory nor would he have made an issue of a blue rag.

    How is it that SN-F supporters haven’t bothered to study the photographs of the crime scene to realise that the blue rag wasn’t on the walkway of the yacht on the morning of 27th but it appeared at the location (near where MV’s DNA was obtained from) in the afternoon at Constitution Dock? Is that how conspiracy theories get born? The Blue Ghostbuster Rag!

    • Formally Just Kate

      April 25, 2019 at 3:45 am

      “Sociology and Journalism: A Comparative Analysis”
      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0094306117744794

      That was a very interesting paper, Peter. Thank you.

      To the relevant point of this debate, the ex-detective Colin McLaren has written a book based on a “true story” or “true crime” so by definition he is now a journalist!

      I argue that journalism is a branch of sociology, with the only differences being the amount of spin, lies or bias used in combination with the degree of cherry picking of data that is applied to the given event.

      • Peter Lozo

        April 25, 2019 at 11:32 am

        Kate,

        My humorous take on this is that the Great Victorian Ghostbusters will be remembered by a code name ‘007 Selective Inattention’!

        SN-F supporters ought to print the crime scene photo 7 and hang it above their computer screen each time they think of getting on TT, or Urban’s website, to whinge.

        I have my own view of Journalists. The CLA website closed down for couple of days in 2015 when I wrote an email about CLA’s inappropriate comment about the events related to an Adelaide case. I was so surprised by their ignorance that I informed them to butt out if I ever end up being wrongfully convicted.

        I also had few email exchanges with Mr Graham Archer (formerly of Ch 7’s Adelaide Tonight) several years ago about the expert evidence that appeared on his own program in 2004. Forensic evidence from facial lividity (as was seen by Prof Henneberg of The University of Adelaide) contradicted Mr Keogh’s version as to how Ms Cheney’s body was slumped in her bathtub. Dr Bob Moles also conveniently chooses to ignore this evidence.

        Watch “Keogh – new revelations 12 July 2004” on YouTube
        https://youtu.be/nY5-ZNgZUvQ

        Ps: Here is a reference to a theoretical neuroscience paper by S. Grossberg on autism. I have been studying his work on brain dynamics since about 1990, with a focus on the visual cortex (and am still studying it because I like to work out how consciousness and awareness arise in biological neural circuits). I consider him as the world’s leading theoretical neuroscientisy, and probably worthy of a Nobel Prize.

        Neural Dynamics of Autistic Repetitive Behaviors and Fragile X Syndrome: Basal Ganglia Movement Gating and mGluR-Modulated Adaptively Timed Learning

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00269/full

        Whilst the neuroscience might be beyond your understanding, the critical points are the brain regions involved and the nature of interactions between them.

  2. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    April 23, 2019 at 11:24 pm

    From a Deluded State of Perception and Cognition to Confusion and then a Reality Check

    From time to time, SN-F supporters realise that they may be stuck in a deluded state of perception and cognition. This tends to happen when someone seriously challenges their interpretation of some circumstance or when a news article is published with a story that is unfavourable to SN-F’s fight for freedom. When that happens, they end up in a state confusion that lasts for a few days until someone breaks through the fog of confusion and decides to test the reality. That someone comes up with an ingenious plan to test the reality. That someone announces to the rest of the gang: “hey folks, we need a reality check on this. I will write to the authorities to check the state of reality today.. So the person initially sends an inquiry to a person of authority in TasPol. The person of authority in TasPol responds “as the matter is before the courts, we are unable to comment.” . This just confuses the folks even further. Then the confused folk get really irritated when another news article gets published with some further information about the reason the star witness recanted her 60 Minutes story. The leader of the pack says, enough is enough. We are been treated as a deluded group of whingers by some jerk of a scientist from Adelaide. Lets lift our game. I will get to the bottom of this saga. I will write a letter to the highest legal officer in van diemen’s land. I will write a letter to the Attorney General of Tasmania.

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/23/open-letter-to-tasmanian-ag-elise-archer-mp-re-taspol-meaghan-vass/

    Folks, the above is my semi-humorous take on what is currently going in with respect to the SN-F supporters under the ‘Journalistic Leadership’ of Mr Andrew Urban of Sydney. You can read his letter to The Hon Elise Archer at the above link on Andrew Urban’s blog.

    Ps: In the letter, Andrew introduced himself as “a journalist and author having investigated wrongful convictions since mid 2013, notably the case of Sue Neill-Fraser, and publish wrongfulconvictionsreport.org (where this letter is also published) and the book, Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson Publishing)..

    Where did I get a strong impression that Andrew Urban is also a Journalistic Advocate for Susan Neill-Fraser?

    • Lola Moth

      April 24, 2019 at 11:39 am

      Dr Lozo, the above comment of yours and other recent ones by you do not sit comfortably with your overall academic achievements. I understand that TT for you is not a place for serious discussion, but it should not become the forum for your spleen venting and your often derogatory comments about others either. I interact with you here because I think highly of your reasoning abilities and your educational qualifications. I respect your academic record but you are not adding to it at the moment. I do not mean to be rude but I am becoming frustrated by your disrespect to others.

      • Peter Lozo

        April 24, 2019 at 1:15 pm

        Tell it to the person who was playing mind games with TasPol detectives when they were investigating a very serious crime.

        • William Boeder

          April 24, 2019 at 5:01 pm

          Peter Lozo, perhaps you might reconsider your “they were investigating a very serious crime?”

          According to your own prior statements, the various police involved in the investigation were to a large extent inept or incompetent.

          • Peter Lozo

            April 24, 2019 at 6:44 pm

            (Insulting jibe deleted)

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Peter, a short time ago this note was appended to one of your off-topic ripostes to Mr Boeder. Mr Boeder received the same request. It said ..

            “Gentlemen, please cease bickering and stay on topic.”

            Today Peter, the message for you is “Cease bickering and stay on topic.”

            Do you detect a significant difference?

            — Moderator

          • Peter Lozo

            April 24, 2019 at 6:52 pm

            They got the manipulating murderer!

            Victorians on the other hand invented a murderer. They chased a ghost. The Great Ghost Busters of Victoria will enter the hall of fame in the Australian Ghost Police Academy.

          • Peter Lozo

            April 24, 2019 at 7:18 pm

            Are the two last sentences in the above Comment appropriate? Do not they, taken together, insinuate something?

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Those last two sentences have now been deleted, Peter.

            — Moderator

      • Peter Lozo

        April 24, 2019 at 2:52 pm

        Lighten up Lola. I am capable of being very serious to be being jovial and humorous. Might be a shock to some, but I can empathize with people but only when I totally let go of being very analytically orientated problem solver, which is what I am in the process of doing now for my mind needs some humor time for a while.

        I was actually laughing when I read Andrew’s letter last night. It is a ridiculous attempt to get a sneak preview into whether he and the rest of SN-F supporters have the correct understanding of whether or not Meaghan recanted. The Assistant Commissioner made a statement. They don’t believe it, and are now claiming that
        it appears that there is failure by TasPol to adhere to the rule of law.

        All I see is that the Wrongful Convictions Report site is achieving with its approach is to cause more social unrest and problems than is warranted. A bunch of conspiracy theorists!

    • Formally Just Kate

      April 24, 2019 at 12:39 pm

      As he has correctly declared, he is a journalist!

      All they do is run with, and make the “noise” for, their own personal gain. They are the equal lowest form of life on the planet, the other being the marketer.

      The letter is only ploy to self-promote. I doubt if Archer will bother with a reply.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Formally Just Kate:

      Always check your grammar, please.

      It’s better that you get it right in the first place rather than obliging TT to correct your English, as has been done for you here. TT is accessible worldwide.

      — Moderator

      • Peter Lozo

        April 24, 2019 at 2:00 pm

        “They are the equal lowest form of life on the planet, the other being the marketer.”

        Did my junior high school science teacher get it wrong when she taught us about protozoa?

        Kate doesn’t like journalists and marketers?

        “Sociology and Journalism: A Comparative Analysis”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0094306117744794

        “Sociological researchers and journalists both study society and write or film reports about their findings, but they are not particularly fond of each other. Many sociologists disparage and even dismiss the work of journalists and, equally important, of fellow sociologists they consider to be journalists.

        Journalists are condemned mostly for dramatizing, oversimplifying, and sensationalizing their findings. They are also condemned for methodological shortcomings, such as using anecdotes and samples of one or two as evidence. In addition, sociologists criticize journalists for not understanding their work or oversimplifying their reports on it.

        They also look down on journalists for being only descriptive, and fellow sociologists who are deemed to be too descriptive may therefore be dismissed as journalists.”

        Is Kate a sociologist?

  3. Clive Stott

    April 23, 2019 at 12:13 am

    Dr Lozo:

    Peter, I have read a few of your comments in relation to this SN-F case, but I am not quite sure what you are trying to get across.

    To give me a better understanding of your logic, would you be so kind as to recap BRIEFLY where you are with it all, and please tell me BRIEFLY a bit about yourself?

    How old are you? Which state do you live in? Are you employed and if so in what area of work?

    • Peter Lozo

      April 23, 2019 at 8:31 am

      Do you know what McLaren’s book is about and what it is trying to get across?

      Do you know what Robin Bowle’s book is about and what it is trying to get across?

      Do you know what Andrew Urban’s book is about and what it is trying to get across?

      I am trying to get across that SN-F supporters have a lot of misconceptions about the circumstantial evidence in this case. Take the grey dinghy issue as an example. Or take the issue of whether or not Sue was capable of removing a 65kg body from below the deck via the saloon skylite hatch. Or take for example whether or not MV’s DNA could have been a secondary transfer deposit.

      Search TT for an article that has my name and you will find a brief bio. My age was listed below somewhere.

      I don’t have to write you a summary of my view on the case. Others will see it as me repeating myself. Go back to April 2014 and start reading my input from then on.

      • Clive Stott

        April 23, 2019 at 5:17 pm

        Peter, thank you.

        I see you have had a lot to say and I just wonder what drives you to write so much.

        I am sorry, but I do not have the time to read all that you pump out, and this is why I asked for a couple of brief answers because I felt you would just push me to read other links .. as you have.

        Oh well, I am not much wiser, thanks Peter. Are you against SN-F supporters .. Yes or No?

        Unfortunately, what I did read sounds like fuzzy logic.

        • Peter Lozo

          April 23, 2019 at 6:25 pm

          I told you that it is my opinion that SN-F supporters have lots of misconceptions about the circumstantial evidence in this case. Didn’t that tell you that I disagreed with their opinions?

          “Are you against SN-F supporters .. Yes or No?”

          That is a very silly question given what my response was to you the first time.

          Let me put it another and more specific way:

          I am not against SN-F supporters nor am I for SN-F supporters. However, I disagree with SN-F supporters in their interpretation of the case evidence and its implication.

          You seem to have a problem with understanding and/or accepting that scientists have a different way of looking at issues compared to non-scientists.

          BTW, I checked your bio on TT before my first reply to you. It took less than 30 seconds!

        • Peter Lozo

          April 23, 2019 at 6:30 pm

          Is it neuro-fuzzy or is it fuzzier than McLaren’s book?

    • Peter Lozo

      April 23, 2019 at 8:41 am

      What are SN-F supporters trying to get across? See Andrew Urban’s blog.

    • Peter Lozo

      April 24, 2019 at 10:51 pm

      “How old are you? Which state do you live in? Are you employed and if so in what area of work?”

      Anything else? My EI versus IQ, or my school grades?

      You could have done your homework on TT and Google before asking me to give you what you needed about this case.

  4. William Boeder

    April 22, 2019 at 8:01 pm

    Formally Just Kate, I have suddenly developed an entirely new understanding about your good self, you are a free-thinking intelligent individual that is NOT necessarily an adherent or sympathetic to narcissistic persons. I ask you to please accept my inclinations were wholesomely incorrect in my thinking that you were a person being supportive to a known person’s narcissism?
    With new abiding respect to you, William

    • Peter Lozo

      April 22, 2019 at 9:11 pm

      You sure jump to conclusions too quickly about anyone who might have the slightest agreement about anything I say.

      Why is that, William?

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Gentlemen, please cease bickering and stay on topic.

      — Moderator

      • William Boeder

        April 22, 2019 at 9:44 pm

        Peter Lozo, possibly due to my not being Robinson Crusoe in my opinions, and my not dwelling upon an island no-one knows where, except perhaps Daniel Defoe.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Gentlemen, please cease bickering and stay on topic.

        — Moderator

        • Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 9:56 pm

          There are times when Kate will disagree with me. There are times when Kate will agree with me. You won’t know what is going on. You will start insulting her when she agrees with me. Then you will switch into being nice to her when she disagrees with me.

          You seem to have a need to belong to a group who view the world in the way you do. But guess what, there will be people who will agree with some of your views but disagree with some of your other views. You hold on to the rigid view of the world. Try to be flexible. It is a much more pleasant life.

          But I am pretty sure that Kate sees SN-F supporters as a deluded lot. I don’t see her switching on this just because you will be nice to her.

    • Formally Just Kate

      April 23, 2019 at 9:16 am

      Good try William, but I think you will find that the subspecies that you belong to has been described previously.

  5. Why did McLaren ignore the winch which had rope going to the skylite hatch? ... P. Lozo

    April 19, 2019 at 5:32 pm

    Even though Colin McLaren handled the relevant photograph as evidenced on Episode 3 of Undercurrent, he totally ignored the content of that photograph when he offered his theory of how Bob Chappell’s body was extracted from the saloon of the yacht via the saloon starboard skylite hatch. And yet that photograph showed that the rope that went to the very skylite hatch he focused his attention on came from a winch that was about 2 metres away on the main mast and which had a large red winch handle in it. Wow – talking about good detective work!

    It should be of interest to the general public, as well as to police detectives, legal experts and the students of forensic science, to question why the former police detective from Victoria ignored the possibility that the body may have been winched out through the saloon skylite hatch with the aid of the above mentioned winch. It is of further interest to question why another former Victorian police detective (Charlie Bezzina), who reviewed Colin’s work and the crime scene evidence, also ignored the same crime scene evidence as Colin did.

    I find it laughable that the two former Victorian detectives can then go on a national current affair program and crticize the work of the Tasmanian police officers, etc. Where on earth did Charlie get the idea of a vomit the size of a dinner plate given that the only visible stain that was photographed in the location where M. Vass’ DNA was obtained from showed a small dark stain the size of a 50c coin or the size of a thumb print? Ask Robyn Bowles hiw large was the small dark stain. In her book she compared it to a 50c coin.

    See the two former Victorian detectives on this this current affairs link:

    https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/lost-at-sea/d039ef80-0a12-48df-8686-a43e96e2f6de

    Why did they talk about ‘shocking new evidence’ given that they ignored the above mentioned winch and the rope that was in it and the winch handle that was in it? Does this ignored physical evidence support the prosecution case that one person who wasn’t particularly strong was the sole perpetrator? Hmm.

    My guess is that SN-F supporters don’t want to mention the above discussed physical evidence because they consider it to go against the defence case. They don’t want that physical evidence to be in the consciousness of the Tasmanian public. Surely any independent truth searching review of the SN-F case, if it gets that far, will note that there was physical evidence which supported the case that Bob’s body was winched out from the saloon. Whether that implicates Sue is another matter.

    I conclude that SN-F supporters aren’t intrested in the truth as to what happened to Bob Chappell. They are interested in Sue’s defence! It took me 4 years to conclude this. Wow, am I a slow learner.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 21, 2019 at 9:08 pm

      Some questions and thoughts on body extraction from the saloon

      In terms of physical effort, what is the advantage in extracting the body via the saloon skylite hatch over extracting the body via the companionway exit?

      If two men were to be asked to remove a 65 kg body from the floor of the saloon of Four Winds but without a directive as to which way and how to do it, what is the likelihood that they would chose to extract the body via the saloon skylite hatch rather than via the companionway exit?

      Suppose that the body is now on the floor of the wheelhouse. Would the two men likely to choose the saloon skylite hatch over the wheelhouse given that the distance to the exit is now much shorter than the distance out via the saloon skylite hatch?

      Wouldn’t it be more efficient for two men to carry out the 65 kg body via the companionway exit regardles of whether the starting position was the floor of the saloon or the floor of the wheelhouse?

      Suppose that the same task is now given to a physically weak person who is reasonably familiar with the yacht and the use of winches. What direction would that person take and how would he/she do it given that the end result is to lower the body onto an inflatable dinghy?

      I tend to think that had a 65 kg body been extracted by two male strangers that they would have taken the fastest way out they could manually manage: out via the companionway exit.

      • Peter Lozo

        April 22, 2019 at 10:49 am

        Key skills for homicide detectives versus research scientists

        Given that two sets of investigators with trained and experienced police detective skills (TasPol detectives; Victorian ex-detectives) failed to take into account the crime scene photo 7 when proposing how Bob Chappell’s body was likely extracted from the saloon of Four Winds, I went online to find out what skills are expected from a homicide detective. Here is a good list:

        “Regardless of whether you pursue a career with a law enforcement agency or as a private detective, certain skills are critical to your success as a detective.

        Critical Thinking and Problem Solving. …

        Attention to Detail. …

        Computer and Technology Skills. …

        Written and Oral Communication. …

        Other Important Skills.

        Since I don’t have any experience as a police detective but as a research scientist, I thought to see how the skill sets compare. Here is a list for research scientists:

        “Key skills for research scientists

        Patience.

        Determination.

        Scientific and numerical skills.

        Flexibility.

        Decisiveness.

        A logical and independent mind.

        Meticulous attention to detail and accuracy.

        Excellent analytical skills.”

      • Lola Moth

        April 22, 2019 at 1:06 pm

        Peter, why is it that yourself and the police have this need for Bob’s body to have been in the dinghy? You have carefully woven a case together so that the body is lowered into the dinghy, yet there is no evidence at all for the body having been in it.

        The dinghy had significant amounts of blue luminol (the presumptive test for blood) in it but the subsequent 16 confirmation tests for blood all proved negative. Why would someone, especially if they were doing this alone, put a dead body in an inflatable dinghy when getting it out at the other end would be very difficult? Why not tie a rope to the body and tow it to where you want it? Why not just push it off the deck and let the tide take it?

        I think the idea that someone put the body inside the inflatable dinghy and then managed to dumped it over the high bulky side just doesn’t seem plausible.

        • Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 3:51 pm

          “in the dinghy”

          Have you read what I had written on this thread somewhere below and elsewhere as far back as Nov 2016?

          I don’t think that the body was completely in the dinghy for that would cause a difficulty for a physically weak perpetrator when disposing the body. I used the term ‘onto the inflatable dingy’.

          My two preferences are:

          Across the bow of the dinghy but on the diagonal side of where the dinghy operator would be sitting.

          Or

          Below the surface of the water, tied to the dinghy by a length of rope and towed at a slow speed.

          Now: what is the difference between the way SN-F supporters talk about MV’s DNA and the luminol positive reaction in the dinghy?

          In both cases there was no confirmed blood.

          In both cases there was strong luminol reaction.

          In both cases a DNA was detected.

          But they say that the size of MV’s DNA was a dinner plate! Why don’t they then use the same logic with Bob’s DNA that was found in or on the dinghy as being half the size of the dinghy?

          I will discuss the luminol issue some more later. Am busy for the rest of the day.

        • Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 4:31 pm

          One final thing Lola, before I go out for the day:

          You are pretty good in your reasoning!

        • Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 8:38 pm

          Lola,

          Thought you might be interested in the daoligue between Dr Peter McMinn (Sue’s medical friend from 1980’s) and me on this 2016 TT Article

          Letter to the Editor on Sue Neill-Fraser

          https://tasmaniantimes.com/2016/11/letter-to-the-editor-on-sue-neill-fraser/

          In particular, please read my Comments of

          November 27, 2016 at 6:03 pm

          December 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm

          In the Nov 27th Comment , I list several options of how the body could be positioned and then easily disposed.

          The important point is that the prosecution during Sue’s trial wasn’t trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt how Bob was killed nor how the body was removed and disposed off. In other words, what happened after the murder was not important in order to convict Sue of murder.

          • Lola Moth

            April 23, 2019 at 8:36 am

            Peter, your last paragraph contains everything that disturbs me about this case.

            “The important point is that the prosecution during Sue’s trial wasn’t trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt how Bob was killed or how the body was removed and disposed of. In other words, what happened after the murder was not important in order to convict Sue of murder.”

            The Prosecution told a very fanciful story of how Sue went to the yacht and killed Bob before disposing of his body. They had to invent this story because there is no corroborating evidence. I could have made up a better story about how Sue did it that would have been more believable and fitted much better with the facts. I could probably have made up a better story with anyone else as the murderer as well, and made it seem feasible.

            This trial was a dog’s breakfast from the start. Any way you look at it, it was an unsafe verdict. Physical evidence was thrown away if it didn’t fit with the circumstantial facts the police preferred. I hope Sue wins her appeal so there can be a new trial that properly presents the facts. I don’t know if Sue is guilty or not, but I feel a terrible injustice happened when Sue was convicted on the evidence presented, and by the words from the judge that made supposition sound like fact to the jury.

            This was a shameful case and even those who feel in their hearts that Sue is guilty should be ashamed of how little actual evidence put her in prison. I personally would want more than was presented by the prosecution before I allow myself to celebrate that a murderer is getting their just punishment.

          • Peter Lozo

            April 23, 2019 at 10:33 am

            Lola, If it disturbs you then you have to ask yourself why does it disturb you.

            For example: do you hold onto the view that the prosecution should have explained exactly how it happened and exactly when each bit of it happened, and then provided proof to back it up?

            I gather that you want all the facts to be presented in no uncertain terms. But that isn’t the way the world works. If I were to give you a witness to a crime you would probably believe that the witness was correct. But eyewitnesses can be wrong about the colour of the car or about the identity of a person or how many perpetrators were seen or what they heard, etc.

            You will find that juries are affected in their thinking when they have a defendant who had lied to police a number of times about her/his whereabouts on the day the murder occurred, particularly if the defendant was the last known person to have seen the murder victim and is also the spouse of that victim.

            I wouldn’t hold onto the view that everything was done after midnight.

            I am puzzled why Sue’s supporters aren’t concerned about the missing 5 hours in Sue’s sccount of her whereabouts: 4 pm – 9 pm, but are whinging and whining about the way the journalists lately reported about Meaghan’s recantation. Something is amiss in the minds of deluded people.

            I am giving you my attention because I can see that you are making an effort to understand and are capable of good reasoning.

    • William Boeder

      April 22, 2019 at 11:48 am

      Peter Lozo, I find this comment by you in the above to be an offensive attempt to now distance yourself from your former long term strong held position, that Ms. Sue Neill-Fraser’s was guilty beyond all doubt for the whole box and dice of the events occurring on that particuar day all those years ago.

      You have demonstrated yourself as the most difficult of individuals to view this insufficiently police investigated case matter, with you agreeing whole-heartedly that the case transcripts provided the only possible means for this still unconfirmed murder, was to have yourself relying entirely on the case transcripts as impeccaple evidence for the arrest of the murderer as Ms. Sue Neill-Fraser, then you threw your support to the former DPP and the presiding Judge, as having dealt with this case in the best manner that it deserved.

      I recall you jousting with all and every person with a differing view to the point you would become increasingly hostile toward these same should any person not agree with your immensely blinkered views.

      Myself, along with many others who happened to wholly disagree with your interpretation of the case, despite its written case transcript, had made you so angry that you then began the issuing of your befoulments, then you had begun your hyper-critical denouncments up to the point of issuing threats to myself and your claiming myself to be the Tas Times Bully.

      So strict was your endorsement of the Crown’s case that it had caused me to ask the question “if you were a paid individual acting in the Crown’s best interests, against all other claims and statements to the contrary.”
      Simply on the basis that you had been the singular person who had become so fixated on the case matter that had you appear as a paid individual for confirming the swag of circumstantial evidence that had been presented to the Supreme Court, then at the same time denouncing the comments published on Tasmanian Times by attendees to this forum that held a different view to your fixated opinions.

      Now to quote a few of your words from your comment appearing just above;

      “My guess is that SN-F supporters don’t want to mention the above discussed physical evidence because they consider it to go against the defence case. They don’t want that physical evidence to be in the consciousness of the Tasmanian public. Surely any independent truth searching review of the SN-F case, if it gets that far, will note that there was physical evidence which supported the case that Bob’s body was winched out from the saloon…. Whether that implicates Sue is another matter.”

      “I conclude that SN-F supporters aren’t intrested in the truth as to what happened to Bob Chappell. They are interested in Sue’s defence!
      It took me 4 years to conclude this. Wow, am I a slow learner.”

      Now I state as follows, the complete switch-around by you is the sort of thing that sets you as being remotely distant from the most credible of all those others that have closely followed up the entire sequence of this SN-F case as was set by the Crown Prosecutor Vs Ms. Sue Neill-Fraser.

      If both Garry and Geraldine would be kind enough to verify the above assertions in my comment it would be appreciated?

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 22, 2019 at 12:44 pm

        I still believe that SN-F is guilty BRD! That hasn’t changed since May 2015. It took me several weeks to make that preliminary conclusion which only kept solidifying the deeper I got into the case evidence.

        But my purpose on getting into the depths of this case is a scientific desire to find the truth of what happened to Bob Chappell, how it happened, and to hopefully locate his remains. Whether I succeed or not is irrelevant. This approach enables me to dedicate all my analytical skills to the problem, unaffected by an emotional attachment to any side or any person involved in commenting or in investigating the case. I am thus minimising the possibility of being blinded by confirmation bias.

        I am continuously revising my understanding, which to the TT readers might look to be repetition after a repetition. Had I also been a yachtie I would have nailed some of the problems several years ago. This has been a big learning experience for me. I took time to study yachts, their accessories, etc. I took time to speak to yachties. I took time to search the internet to learn some more about yachts. I learned several months ago about a thing called a rope clutch. That is another way one can overcome the problem with winches that aren’t self tailing. With each bit of technical knowledge I acquire about yachts I try to revise my winching solution. I love learning and I love solving complex problems. That is why I am on here! The case of Derek Bromley is my next and last cold case study. I want to learn something about forensic psychology and forensic psychiatry.

        As for locating the remains: I would first want to know the travel route that Four Winds took on 25th Jan.

      • Formally Just Kate

        April 22, 2019 at 12:46 pm

        Peter,
        Scientists and detectives must also be devoid of specific personality traits, one of which would be magical thinking.

        • Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 2:22 pm

          Does that also apply to Sociologists? After all, they are referred to as Social Scientists!

          Physical scientists are well grounded in physical reality. I would be worried about Mathematicians, Novelists and Artists.

          • Formally Just Kate

            April 22, 2019 at 5:03 pm

            Peter,

            For the purpose of this conversation I would narrow it to just forensic scientists and detectives.

            If you do a net search for
            ” Autism, Sex and Science: Simon Baron-Cohen at TEDxKingsCollegeLondon”

            You may find his talk interesting. It was recorded in 2013 so he does not take into account the only female Fields medal winner in 2014, Maryam Mirzakhani.

            I would also suggest you try the combined version of prof Baron-Cohen’s Empathizing Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ) tests.

            https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/EQSQ.php

            Or just go here

            https://www.autismresearchcentre.com/people_Baron-Cohen

            The two least scientific types I pick are the Schizotypal and the narcissistic. One will look at the dots, imagine a couple more, then join them together; the narcissistic will make up any story as long as it makes them look good (they lie).

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 8:04 pm

          Dear Kate,

          Thanks but it is irrelevant. I suggest
          https://www.yourhealthinmind.org/mental-illnesses-disorders/adhd-in-adults
          Anyway, it is beyond the nature of this thread.

          Peter

        • Peter Lozo

          April 22, 2019 at 8:43 pm

          Kate,

          Thanks. I don’t consider this forum to be the appropriate medium for the intended communication. But I find the subject interesting if only because it is about the brain.

          Peter

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 22, 2019 at 12:51 pm

        “Myself, along with many others who happened to wholly disagree with your interpretation of the case, despite its written case transcript, had made you so angry that you then began the issuing of your befoulments, then you had begun your hyper-critical denouncments up to the point of issuing threats to myself and your claiming myself to be the Tas Times Bully.”

        When you and the many others you are referring to demonstrate the reasoning skills I expect of anyone who wishes to challenge me, then I might just pay attention.

        I have heard enough nonsense. Otherwise it is a waste of my time. OK?

    • Peter Lozo

      April 22, 2019 at 11:49 pm

      Just found that the link to Ch9’s ‘Lost at sea’ current affair program (which featured Charlie Bezzina, Colin McLaren and Robert Richter) has been disabled from being seen in SA. Am not sure sbout other states.

      This is what shows as of last night;

      This video is restricted from playing in your current geographic region

      The program was visible a few days ago when I posted the above Comment. I saw it a number of times in previous weeks.

  6. Peter Lozo

    April 19, 2019 at 4:40 pm

    ….

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Peter, that image link response is not evident here.

    An IT friend might easily explain it.

    — Moderator

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 19, 2019 at 9:05 pm

      ….

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Peter, no such conversions are done by this Moderator.

      If there is an explanation it lies elsewhere, perhaps with invisible embedded code in appropriately treated links. Try consulting an IT expert.

      — Moderator

      • Peter

        April 20, 2019 at 12:19 am

        Will do. Thanks. I am puzzled.

        • Peter Lozo

          April 20, 2019 at 5:15 pm

          All my previous posts on this thread were from my Smartphone . For test purposes only, this Comment is from my laptop. Here I am providing a link to the same Silly Olympics video that Kate posted the other day.

          https://youtu.be/15Z5nsyLDbE

          So far, it is only Kate’s Comments that embed links to YouTube on this thread that show on my computers as having an image. Perhaps Kate is posting from the latest version of the operating system or the internet. Her other Comment on 13 March below where she jokes with William Boeder shows an image as well. Here is the link to that video

          https://youtu.be/mJIQU-icSN4

          Ps: for some reason I incorrectly thought that William Boeder achieved the same effect. I can’t find anything on this thread that shows the same effect as what Kate achieved. Kate contacted me last night via the messenger to inform me that all she does is to copy the link and that the conversion is done by the Moderator. However, the Moderator informed me that this is not so. I like to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps this is related to the version of the software on Kate’s computer.,

          • Peter

            April 20, 2019 at 6:34 pm

            Again, I can only see the text link rather than an image link. I will try next week with the latest version of the internet.

          • Formally Just Kate

            April 21, 2019 at 11:09 am

            Peter, I am using the latest version of Firefox with ad blocker and usually use DuckDuckGo as a search engine.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Formally Just Kate,

            Thankyou for this offering, but Peter’s vexation is a software matter and has nothing to do with browsers, ad blockers or search engines.

            Peter may access technical knowledge elsewhere.

            — Moderator

        • Peter Lozo

          April 21, 2019 at 1:54 am

          This is a test – posting via my FB on my Smartphone.

          https://youtu.be/O86lYE_brQQ

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Peter, this subject is way off topic.

          Further postings of this nature risk deletion.

          — Moderator

          • Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 12:30 pm

            Thanks Kate, Moderator and William,

            This new feature of TT would be of interest to most TT contributors and it would be useful to know about how it can be utilized.

            Based on William’s response below, he wasn’t able to achieve the effect that Kate achieved.

            I did a quick search of another TT Article

            https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/01/tasmania-burns-again-in-2019/#comment-229005

            It shows that Clive Stott in his Comment dated April 12, 2019 at 2:45 am, achieved the same effect as Kate did in this thread. But Lyndall posted a Comment on the same thread as Clive on April 4, 2019 2:41 pm, with two links to YouTube but didn’t achieve that effect. But then Lyndal posted another Comment on April 7, 2019 at 2:02 pm, with a link to a YouTube and did achieve the effect. By that I mean that the link shows as an image rather than as text.

            Once we work out what is going on, the Moderator can delete this particular communication and inform all users of TT of how to use the new feature available on TT. This isn’t just my issue although I am the first who wrote about it on TT.

          • Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 12:59 pm

            The new TT computer system has a new feature that most people are not aware off and/or don’t know how to use it.

            Given that Lindsay is trying to sell TT wouldn’t it be useful for the potential new owners, as well as to the TT contributors, to know about this new wonderful feature and how they can use it to provide visually better presented TT Comments?

            I discovered this new feature when I saw Kate’s two Comments that embedded links to YouTube. When the new TT computer system was set up then the TT Editor and the assigned Moderators should have been informed about this new feature and how it can be used. Then the public should have been informed. I am spending a lot of time this long weekend to work out how to use it. The soonest I will be able to speak to an IT expert will be on Tuesday. Until then, we can work on this and perhaps figure it out soon if cooperate on this.

            Thanks,
            Peter

          • William Boeder

            April 21, 2019 at 4:11 pm

            Peter Lozo and Kate, I offer what I believe is the answer to this conundrum that falls upon whether one utilizes the attachment button then clicks in the appropriate link, as opposed to a simple copy and paste of a copied URL which is often the quickest method for the provision of a linking reference URL.
            Others my know otherwise……either way the URL is transmitted as it is intended.

          • Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 4:35 pm

            Here is the solution I just discovered:

            If you go on YouTube and copy the link of any video (which is the procedure I have used so far) all you will get is a brief link address that starts with the following preamble:

            https://youtu.be/

            For example: if I click on the Silly Olympics video that Kate posted below and obtain its link address I will get the following full link address:

            https://youtu.be/15Z5nsyLDbE

            But when I google for that video by using its name I get a very different link address that is much longer. The preamble is now as follows

            https://www.youtube.com/

            If I now provide the full link address then it will appear on TT as an image. Here it is:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDm6xASIOw

            I hope that this works out. If it does then the Moderator can inform all the TT users of the two different procedures of embedding a link to videos that end up with two different final results. One result will end up showing a text link. The other result will show an image link.

            Peter

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Peter, Comment preparation and proof reading are the author’s responsibility.

            — Moderator

          • Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 5:31 pm

            William, thanks very much for the effort you have put in.

            The problem is solved, as per my explanation a short while ago.

            If you obtain the video link address from Google or any other internet search engine and paste it on TT if will appear as an image.

            If you obtain the video link adress from YouTube it will show as text (unless the Moderator intervenes and provide the full www link).

            I really like the former. But the latter will take less memory on TT’s computer.

            Cheers,
            Peter

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 6:02 pm

            MOD: Aren’t you being too tough with your suggestion that it is the responsibility of the authors to spend time researching how to fully utilise TT given that TT doesn’t appear to have a help facility?

            I am probably better informed and experienced with IT than most on here and yet it took me a while last couple of days to work out how to achieve what I wanted to achieve on TT. You initially wrote to me that providing a link would do it. But that didn’t work because the link that I initially provided came directly from YouTube rather than from the internet search engine. Kate’s response gave me the clue that she was using an internet search engine rather than searching through YouTube itself. Your response to her wasn’t kind given that we were trying to help you and other TT contributors on here to better understand how to achieve certain results on TT.

            I think that TT ought to provide a help facility.

            Peter

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Peter,

            Tasmanian Times is merely a publisher. Authors of Articles and Comments compose. Tasmanian Times publishes. Each task has its own challenges and responsibilities.

            Tasmanian Times is not currently an everyday publisher.

            A Technical Help facility is something that new management might be happy to consider, but it will have its own learning curve to master .. and Web publishing is definitely not a stroll in the park.

            — Moderator

          • Formally Just Kate

            April 22, 2019 at 5:33 am

            Its OK, Mod.

            I am very near certain that you are not the only one who Peter has managed to put into therapy with his tenacity.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Dr Peter Lozo, a learned scientist in Adelaide, is clearly a well intentioned and persistent fellow, and an erudite and highly skilled researcher. He is also tenacious, as you say. He just won’t let go, and repetition is his well-worn hammer.

            Peter’s forensic discoveries are impressive. The written quality of his Comment presentations, the best we receive, indicates exceptionally clear thinking and an admirable ability to express it splendidly.

            Consequently Kate, this Moderator is not in need of Lozo-induced therapy, but thanks anyway, for the empathy.

            Peter’s admirable just-discovered ability to present video clips in TT’s Comments section, and his ecstatic jump-up-and-down delight about it, is of concern, however. What next? Advertisements? Pornography? Violence? Lost and Found?

            TT’s Comments section is reserved primarily for our readers’ sensible comments on the Articles which we freely present to the public without obligation or charge.

            But what is a comment?

            Noun: A verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction.

            Verb: To express an opinion or reaction in speech or writing.

            Hmmmn. Writing or speech only. There’s nothing about images or video clips there!

            Permitting TT’s readers to enter TT’s Comments territory with image, video clip and movie presentations is fraught with risk for a publisher with insufficient resources to vet everything of that nature that comes in, so this Moderator recommended that such be absolutely banned. This recommendation has just been endorsed by the the Editor, Mr Tuffin.

            Consequently, readers are requested not to send in links (URLs) to such material, and to advise us of any that appear by offering a Comment headed “Moderator … ”

            — Moderator

          • Peter Lozo

            April 22, 2019 at 10:40 am

            MOD: I have been providing links to video clips on TT for several years now. Have a look at the many other TT Articles on the SN-F case.

            What is new with the current TT system is that it allows the link to a video clip to be seen as an image but only if you her the link dress from an internet search engine. It was fascinating for me to learned by trying to figure out what was going on. It reminded me of a telephone problem I discovered when I called someone’s lanlindine from my my phone several years ago. I didn’t get the right house. But a friend of mine used his mob number and managed to get the right house! I discovered that a Telstra mob phone called the telstra account while my friend’ss Optus mob phone called an opotus account. It turned out that two households were assigned the same landline number, one being via Telstra, the other being via Optus. Which household you got depended on whether you called from a mobile phone that was with telstra or optus. One household didn’t believe me. I asked them to call their own landline (which was with Optus) but with a mobile phone that was with Telstra. They were shocked when their own landline wasn’t ringing. Someone else answered their call.

            Tenacity is one of the requirements for a scientist! A very strong drive to solve a problem.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Peter,

            Your resolute problem solving determination is admirable.

            We know readers have been providing links as of yore, as you say. What we don’t want is images etc showing up within Comments as you have been doing.

            No more such links, please. They risk deletion upon discovery.

            TT is not social media.

            — Moderator

  7. Rosemary

    April 19, 2019 at 12:54 pm

    The one main point in all of this conjecture that is crucial to the original unsafe verdict is that there is no real evidence to link Sue to the boat at all. So all the science and hoo ha and scientific boasting is still just peripheral to the verdict. No matter how many ways you can say it and repeat yourself

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 19, 2019 at 2:28 pm

      You have a rather sloppy understanding. This is shown in your statement “there is no real evidence to link Sue to the boat at all.

      Excuse my language but is real evidence? Wasn’t Sue one of the owners of the yacht who had it for a few months before Bob disappeared? (I think they purchased the yacht in Sept 2008).

      Do you mean direct evidence? If so, then why don’t you say so?

      This case isn’t about direct evidence but about indirect evidence! That is, it is a circumstantial case. Circumstantial cases require more logic, knowledge and rational reasoning power than the cases where there is direct evidence, hence why these type of cases end up being controversial. Some examples: Henry Keogh, Gordon Wood, Susan Neill-Fraser, etc.

      With your limited understanding of the problems that are associated with cases where there is direct evidence, why don’t you look at cases of wrongful convictions and overturned convictions that had direct evidence – a witness to the crime?

      How about if you find out how a case that had direct evidence, a witness who saw her attacker, led to a wrong man going to prison for 18 years even though the circumstantial evidence was in his favour? Steven Avery was wrongly convicted in the mid 1980s of sexual and attempted murder because the victim identified him even though he presented evidence that he was elsewhere at about the time the victim was attacked. There are many examples where direct evidence convicted an innocent person.

      Please pay attention to crime scene photo 7 and ask why Colin McLaren and Eve Ash have ignored the winch and the rope that went from that winch to the skylite hatch to which Colin focused his attention on. Is it because it doesn’t support the theory that two or more men were involved? I can on my own and without a winch lift and carry a 65 kg body, at short bursts, out via the companion way and across the deck and then use a rope to lower the body onto the dinghy, or I can rig up a winch and rope on the main mast to winch out the 65 kg body through the skylite hatch. Why was the body removed via the skylite hatch rather than via the companion way? Was it because one can use a winch and the boom on the main mast that is a very short distance from the saloon skylite hatch? The boom can be used as a hoist that can be positioned over the skylite hatch. Who would think of this and have the technical knowledge, as well as having the time to bother with it unless the person is skilled and physically weak? Strangers to the yacht, particularly if it included two men, would want to do it as quickly as possible but it takes patience, time and technical know-how for one physically weak person to remove the body.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 19, 2019 at 2:48 pm

      Why don’t you state that you read Colin McLaren’s book and that you too noticed that he didn’t at all mention the winch on the main mast that had rope going to the very skylite hatch he focuses his attention on? Are you afraid of saying the truth about one obvious piece of crime scene evidence because you might be seen to be going against your support of Sue? Wasn’t it you who drew my attention to the saloon skylite hatch a day or so before I obtained a copy of McLaren’s book? I took notice of that. I have since been drawing people’s attention to the piece of evidence that Colin ignored. Why did he ignore it is the issue given that there is now video proof that he handled the relevant crime scene photograph?

      Do you really care about the truth or are you too focused on defending the view you took several years ago?

  8. Dr Peter Lozo

    April 19, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    Confirmation Bias and Selective Evidence Processing in the SN-F camp

    Why are Sue’s supporters so obviously suffering from confirmation bias when it comes to analysing any new developments in the case? Wouldn’t they be better off by re-calibrating their understanding of the original evidence in this case given that some of the key photographs of the crime scene became publicly available within the last 12 months? Seems to me that those in the SN-F camp rather stick to their emotional attachment to the view they formed several years ago than to have courage and wisdom to revise their understanding on the basis of the crime scene photographs that became publicly available in recent times.

    One big issue which Sue’s supporters are ignoring is the photographic evidence related to the crime scene. The rope that was found to be dangling through the skylite hatch actually came from a winch on the main mast that had a large red winch handle in it. For some unexplained reason and whilst the yacht was still in police posession, Susan Neill-Fraser rearranged the crime scene evidence on the deck by taking the rope off the winch and removing the handle out of that winch even though she was asked by a detective not to touch anything.

    Doesn’t the above evidence support the prosecution case that one person was involved rather than two or more people as alleged by the defence?

    I recalibrated my understanding of the winching problem about 2 months ago when I saw Episode 3 of Undercurrent and realised that Colin McLaren ignored the above mentioned winch and the rope that went from the winch to the very skylite hatch on which he focused his attention.

    But what are the SN-F supporters doing now? They are trying to say that what the Assistant Commissioner was quoted as saying on 11th March was invalidated by what was said in court yesterday when Meaghan appeared on the charge of possessing Marijuana. They sure are sceptical of the police and rational argument.

    Didn’t Meaghan say on 60 Minutes that she was recently clean of drugs and was staying away from them? See the transcript below by Garry Stannus. But she was found to have marijuana in her bag a few days before the 60 Minutes program was aired! How many Tassy based SN-F supporters are aware of this?

  9. Dr Peter Lozo

    April 19, 2019 at 10:26 am

    Crime scene evidence ignored by Sue’s supporters

    Why are Sue’s supporters so obviously suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias when it comes to analysing any new developments in the case? The Comment below by Garry Stannus is the most extreme example of confirmation buas I have seen on TT in relation to the SN-F case. The mention of suicide pills is very weird. Why did he allow the mob mentality to fool his normally high level of cognitive functioning?

    Wouldn’t Sue’s supporters be better off cognitively by re-calibrating their understanding of the original evidence in this case given that some of the key photographs of the crime scene became publicly available only within the last 12 months? They sure would if only they could let go of their emotional attachment to the rigid view they have held since about the time the Shadow of Doubt documenrary was first shown in 2013 followed by the 2014 VPFSD forensic report extracts that Barbara Etter selectively posted on TT in August 2014.

    One big issue which Sue’s supporters are ignoring is the photographic evidence related to the crime scene. The rope that was found to be dangling through the skylite hatch actually came from a winch on the main mast that had a large red winch handle in it. For some unexplained reason and whilst the yacht was still in police posession, Susan Neill-Fraser rearranged the crime scene evidence on the deck by taking the rope off the winch and removing the handle out of that winch even though she was asked by a detective not to touch anything on the day she was allowed to board the yacht at the Constitution dock.

    Doesn’t the above mentioned crime scene evidence support the prosecution case that one person was involved rather than two or more people as alleged by the defence? Is that the reason Eve Ash and Colin McLaren have totally ignored the Crime Scene Photograph 7? Funny enough, there is proof on Episode 3 of Undercurrent that Colin McLaren picked up the very photograph but didn’t bother to look at it. The same photograph is also shown to be on a pin-up board that Eve Ash and Colin McLaren had on a wall. That crucial photograph is also embedded in Andrew Rule’s March 2018 article (it is shown below the photograph of Colin McLaren).

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/andrew-rule-twists-in-the-tale-of-bob-chappell-murder-mystery/news-story/e4b2b0513ae3fb74cdc06d7ae995c682

    Ps: I recalibrated my understanding of the case about 2 months ago when I saw Episode 3 of Undercurrent and realised that Colin McLaren ignored the above mentioned winch and the rope that went from the winch to the very skylite hatch he focused his attention on. He sure would would have failed my class. TasPol, for a reason I don’t understand, believed that the winch on the rear mast was used and that the body was winched out via the companion way. But neither Colin McLaren nor TasPol detectives bothered to test how a physically weak person could have winched out the body and then transferred the body across the deck to then lower the body onto the dinghy. For the benefit of contribution to knowledge and better understanding of the case, I strongly urge TasPol to do a thorough study of the winching issue and to provide a full re-enactment. On my Facebook, I have offered a solution of how a winch and the boom on the main mast could be used to winch out a body via the saloon skylite hatch.

  10. SN-F: Prosecutor today in court shows police claims to be false ... SOS ... Mayday ... Police in sinking dinghy ...---... ...---... ...---..

    April 18, 2019 at 7:45 pm

    Re a recent comment post … perhaps just another case of a one person adopting another identity on someone else’s blog…?

    Just before the anti-truth brigade reach for the suicide pills, perhaps they should read Andrew Urban’s latest (and previous) blog posts: https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/18/meaghan-vass-told-police-no-comment-prosecution-tells-court/

    And then, pull the plug Lindsay … this thread’s earily like ‘On the beach’, after the bomb’s dropped and they are in the sub, looking for surviving life on earth. Yet they’re receiving transmissions on the radio, and finally get to the lonely transmitting station and there, find only a broken window sash hitting a telegraph key: …—… …—… … — ..

    I reckon the telegraph key is your lonely moderator, but out of politeness would not wish to disclose the identity of your broken window sash…

    -signing off, … I may be gone for some time…
    Garry.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 18, 2019 at 8:59 pm

      Confirmation Bias!

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 18, 2019 at 11:13 pm

      I predicted the meltdown but I didn’t expect it so soon nor did I expect you to go down in such a fancy way. Wow.

      • William Boeder

        April 19, 2019 at 1:13 pm

        Lozo, not necessarily so, your prediction of a meltdown is but another one of your mind’s invention.
        There seems to be a number of persons you have chosen to ridicule destroy their credible selves………by denigrating their good character and their bonafide endeavours.
        Eve Ash, Andrew Urban, Meaghan Vass, Sue Neill-Fraser, Robin Bowles, Bob Moles, and the number of others not so often mentioned.

        In fact you have attempted the same upon myself with your fatuous claims of contacting ASIO….then your directed inquiries down Hobart way for an authoritarian opinion, you hoping to gain information prejudical to my personal character and whaterver good it may have provided you, other than it has demonstrated your underlying deeply embedde evil or sinister intended purposes.

        Had you contacted the former DPP you would have received an opinion favourable to your designs, as my encounters with the former DPP do not bode comfortable with this now discharged former DPP.

        What you may not realize is that I have provided Tasmania’s Police Commissioner with a series of contentions unfavourable to the State’s unique carriage of justice.
        Consider that my contentions have held their fact based information and rather revealing evidence that is not necessarily meritorious to the product presneted by Tasmania’s Supreme Court proceedings.

        Something overlooked by persons external to this State, yourself for example, is that the persons external are not privy to the deep undercurrent that flows beneath the streets close under the temple of Tasmania’s Exclusives.
        Convenient it is for the persons that have found an access to those same flowing undercurrents, this entry point remains unbeknown to the bastion of Tasmania’s law exempt Exclusives.

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          April 20, 2019 at 7:52 pm

          It has become apparent to me that the chap is hopelessly devoted to proving to the Tasmanian community that he challenged a scientist and won!

          He started off well in 2014 with some good reasoning but over the period of last 4 years since I got involved in April 2015 he has gradually become too engrossed in proving me wrong. He would be better of searching for the truth. He is now well aware from my postings on this thread that both TasPol and the two Victorian ex-detectives screwed up with respect to crime scene photo 7. He ought to make something out of this to refine his understanding of the case rather than being obsessed with only one issue, the most current issue related to Vass. If he prefers to focus on Vass then why not question how on earth was she able to all of a sudden afford to be an inpatient in a drug rehabilitation facility on mainland that could cost up to $10K for 4 weeks, which she went to several days after Justice Brett announced his decision.? Why doesn’t he question Andrea Brown about Karen Keefe’s claim that Andrea got paid to help get Meaghan off to Melbourne for the 60 Mins interview. Why doesn’t he question the source of funds, etc?. Wht doesn’t he question Andrea’s primitive and underdeveloped reasoning skills but believes all her interpretations? Has he done research on her character?

    • Peter

      August 16, 2019 at 12:29 am

      “In a later comment, you referred to the suggestion that some say “… 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑢𝑔 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛…. ”

      Their silly suggestion seems again to be the product of desperation. As you said some time ago, Meaghan, when picked up from a bus-stop, taken to Glenorchy, put in front of Damian, offered only “𝑁𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡”.”

      see your comment dated: April 19, 2019 at 7:29 am

      on

      https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/18/meaghan-vass-told-police-no-comment-prosecution-tells-court/?unapproved=7431&moderation-hash=651a8503c0f39750b8d2573e3bae76f7#comment-7431

      It was I who made the suggested to Andrew Urban on 18th April that the recantation was separate to the interview for the drug posession but my comment wasn’t uploaded by the Editor of that website. Andrew must have read it and then contacted Andy to inform her that someone had a different interpretation to the interpretation that he published, based on her own interpretation, on his website.

      Was my suggestion silly or on the spot?

      It is just simple common sense and logic to conclude that police would have filed two briefs based on their interview of Meaghan on 8th March. The brief that was submitted to the prosecutor in relation to marijuana possession wouldn’t contain any statements that MV made when she was questioned about the 60 Minutes story.

      I am still sticking to my original interpretation (which I also explained in several Comments earlier on this blog); and I am still sticking to my original belief that MV recanted when she was interviewed by TasPol on 8th March.

      I now see that there is on Wrongful Convictions Report a new version of what Meaghan said to the cops when questioned about her 60 Minutes story.

      It is no longer “no comment”.

      See here

      https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/08/14/i-will-tell-the-court-meaghan-vass/

      Now the claim is that she said something else!

      Several people have suggested that Meaghan’s interview on 8th March was recorded on a video.

      Andrew now claims that the video recording was turned off before she was questioned about whether she was on Four Winds.

      Detectives don’t turn off video recordings just before questioning a witness in a murder case. Running the video recorder during the questioning about Neill-Fraser case was far more crucial than when questioning her about marijuana.

      Do you still subscribe to the belief that Meaghan didn’t recant on 8th March?

  11. Dr Peter Lozo

    April 18, 2019 at 7:12 pm

    A simple case of misinterpretation has led to a comedy of nonsense on the Wrongful Convictions Report site

    It is posted on Andrew Urban’s blog today that Meaghan Vass appeared in court in relation to two charges of possesesion of marijuana. Meaghan was apparently accompanied to he court by a friend Andrea Brown . After the court, Andrea submitted a post on Andrew’s blog about the event. She went on to say 

    By the way… Prosecution facts were that Meaghan said no comment to EVERYTHING.

    see her comment here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/16/update-sue-neill-fraser-key-witness-denies-recanting-to-police/

    Even though Meaghan’s appearance in the court was related only to marijuana possession, Andrea Brown (who offers rough opinions on the Wrongful Convictions Report site, and appears not to have respect for police) concluded on the basis of what the Prosecutor said that it also referred to matters related to the SN-F case. She then says “So much for her statement re SNF”. I guess that Ms Brown is using the above to claim that when Meaghan was picked up by cops in March and questioned about her 60 Minutes story that her response was ‘No Comment’

    Andrew Urban used the above statment by Ms Brown to then start another blog on this but didn’t’t bother to reason about it to see whether Ms Brown may have made an error in her interpretation. Now Garry Stannus has bought into the above without thinking about it.

    see here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/18/meaghan-vass-told-police-no-comment-prosecution-tells-court/

    Garry ends his post by saying
    “This has now got to the point of black comedy.”

    I agree with that statement by Garry. But it is a comedy of errors because Sue’s supporters don’t trust police and can’t rationally reason because they are affected by confirmation bias.

    What the above mentioned people are all ignorant about is that because Meaghan appeared in the court on the charge of possession that the police brief that was provided to the prosecutor would only contain information that is related to the charge on which Meaghan was required to appear in the court. That police brief wouldn’t contain any information related to the SN-F case and the 60 Minutes.

    Based on the above I am now of opinion that Andrew Urban is desperate for any information that could annul the recent news that Meaghan had reacanted her 60 Minutes story when she was re-interviewed by police in March – on the same day she was found to have marijuana in her posession.

    • Formally Just Kate

      April 19, 2019 at 1:06 am

      Gold medallists: SN-F supporters at the Silly Olympics.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Z5nsyLDbE

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 19, 2019 at 11:28 am

        From the Power of One movie – song Southland Concerto:

        “they run this way, they run that way, they are cowards, they are afraid.”

        A song that I picked out which in my view best represents the mob mentality of SN-F supporters.

        https://youtu.be/O86lYE_brQQ

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          April 19, 2019 at 11:40 am

          ….

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Peter, the link alone should do it.

          — Moderator

          • Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 1:11 pm

            We have so far proven that the link alone isn’t sufficient. Please bear with us until we work it out.

            You can see from my inquiry that not everyone achieves the same final result. It isn’t just my computer and software.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Try: https://www.wikihow.com/Add-a-Link-to-a-Picture

            — Moderator

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 19, 2019 at 7:30 pm

        Hi Kate,

        There is an IT related issue that the Moderator and I are trying to sort out. I see that you are the one (as well as William Boeder) who can help us.

        Your Comment above on my Samsung Galaxy 9 smartphone, and on my laptop, shows an image from a scene in the video. When I look at my Comment below I can only see the text link to the YouTube video that I provided.

        My question is this: What procedure did you use to embed that image link to the YouTube video into your TT Comments?

        Ps: I see that Mr Boeder was able to achieve the same thing in one of his Comments.

        • William Boeder

          April 20, 2019 at 12:46 pm

          Peter Lozo, my only means of transferring imagery or dialogue any time I am at my keyboard is to utilize a copy and paste procedure.
          So if this manifestation or whatever it relates to still that concerns you, then I have no idea of its implementation nor its creation.
          I have never been the recipient of any computer skills training, so please do not credit me with anything out of the basic line of computer skills.
          If it was to do with research matters, well then I might be able to shine a bright upon its better methods and accomplishments then I would be your man.
          Your avid supporter in the name of Kate has shown her skill in submitting link references, I recall this person having submitted a link reference to such a link as sperm donors, whatever the relevance of that topic may have been in this SN-F dialogue, continues to remain a mystery to myself.

          Can you please advise more specifically what it is that you are referring to?
          Bear in mind that the moderator possesses far more skills and capacity than I to seek out the source of any submitted matter or how it may have been achieved,
          Other than the moderator making some further recommendation or discovery, then it is best to call upon the aforementioned skills and interests of Formally Just Kate, ah yes, there was the insertion by this same, of an image to do with Silly Olympics, was she in fact referring to engagees such as yourself in that particular comment?

          • Peter Lozo

            April 20, 2019 at 5:26 pm

            Hi William, here is something you can do to help us work out what is going on.

            Please click on the Silly Olympics and obtain the link to the YouTube video. Copy that link and paste it in a TT Comment box and submit a reply to me.

            I like to see whether you Comnent will show the text link that you provided or will it show an image from that video.

            The two YouTube links that Kate provided on this thread show as images on my Smartphone and on my laptop. But all my Comments that contain a link to a YouTube video show as text links.

            Cheers,
            Peter

          • Formally Just Kate

            April 20, 2019 at 5:34 pm

            “ Your avid supporter in the name of Kate”

            Take it easy My Boeder, I resent that comment!

            Lozo is about as complicated as the common house brick. All he does is apply scientific method in conjunction with the principle of Occam’s razor. I am at an absolute loss as to why these conspiracy theorists appear to be totally unable to challenge him.

          • William Boeder

            April 20, 2019 at 11:09 pm

            Peter Lozo, your requested link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Z5nsyLDbE

          • Peter Lozo

            April 21, 2019 at 1:16 pm

            Thanks William for posting the link to the Sillly Olympics YouTube video. Unlike Kate’s Comment, your Comment shows the link as text.

            Kate’s Comment doesn’t show the text link on my computers and on my smartphone but it shows an image.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 20, 2019 at 7:16 pm

        Kate,

        Further to what you said last night:

        I assume that you are posting here from a computer with the latest version of the internet explorer and the latest version of YouTube.

        If you have a smartphone can you please post the Silly Olympics link on TT so that we can see how the TT computer will process it.

        Thanks.
        Peter

        Ps: you are almost spot on: scientific method + occam razor. There are a few more things I am depending on: research skills, scientific & technical knowledge. GS challenged me on just about everything and anything since I appeared on TT in April 2015. I think that therefore he is likely to fall the heaviest if it is proven that Meaghan recanted her 60 Minutes story. His overwhelming desire to prove me wrong explains the weird nature of his most recent post where he mentioned suicide pills.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      April 19, 2019 at 8:06 pm

      This image on my Facebook shows you what my laptop screen looks like when I have your and my Comments displayed on the screen:

      https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=980654455471287&id=100005802249120&set=a.107478139455594&source=48

      I found that it is independent of the YouTube video. There must be a procedure that allows one to embed an image link instead of a text link. The former is more visually appealing and it immediately shows the viewer that it is a video.

  12. Dr Peter Lozo

    April 18, 2019 at 10:00 am

    A salient point made on Andrew Urban’s blog

    “Logic should tell you that had she been on the yacht then she should have the memory of how she left the yacht and whether the attackers took the body with them on a dinghy. But she stated on 60 Minutes that she has no memory of how she left the yacht. Her statement “I must have gone back to shore but I can’t, I can’t recollect how” is a very strong indicator to me that she made the whole thing up. There are only two ways she could have left the yacht had she been there with other people: via a dinghy or by swimming away. The obvious question that she needs to answer, if you want to believe that she was on the yacht, is whether they took Bob’s body on a dinghy with them to some location distant from the yacht, and where. How convenient was it for her to avoid that question by simply saying that she couldn’t recall how she left the yacht.”

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/15/sue-neill-fraser-case-key-witness-denies-recanting-to-police/#comment-4669

    Thank goodness that there are logical and well reasoning people around. They can pick out the nonsense. They don’t allow their emotions to rule their evaluation of the evidence. They don’t buy into the group mentality that is displayed by Sue’s supporters.

    • William Boeder

      April 18, 2019 at 4:48 pm

      Peter Lozo, your commentary has been shown for what it was, you as a mendicant proffering your heavily biased opinionating that unworthily supports this State’s unjust delivery of justice.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 18, 2019 at 8:15 pm

        The rope that was found to be dangling through the skylite hatch came from a winch on the main mast that had a large red winch handle in it!

        But was this ever mentioned by Dr Bob Moles, Mr Robert Richter QC, Ms Eve Ash, Mrs Barbara Etter, Mr Colin McLaren, Mr Andew Urban, Mr Bill Rowlings, or any other person since Sue’s trial other than by a certain physicist from Adelaide?

        • William Boeder

          April 18, 2019 at 8:49 pm

          Peter Lozo, your credibility has been shattered, all your prior opinionating is soon to be proven worthless.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            April 18, 2019 at 8:58 pm

            Your Comment is noted.

    • Lola Moth

      April 18, 2019 at 5:06 pm

      Peter, the blog you mention has been updated and some posts have been deleted. It appears Meaghan Vass did not recant her statement after her interview with 60 Minutes. “No comment” was all she offered the police.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 18, 2019 at 7:58 pm

        Lola, and you trust Ms Brown’s interpretation?

        Use your common sense and realise that because Meaghan was in court on the charge of possessing marijuana that therefore the brief that was provided to the prosecutor by the police officer who charged Meaghan contained only information that was related to that charge, including any answers that Meaghan provided to questions about the marijuana. But that charge brief wouldn’t contain any information related to Meaghan’s response to questions about the SN-F case or the 60 Minutes story.

        • Lola Moth

          April 18, 2019 at 9:01 pm

          Peter, Meaghan was picked up and questioned about her 60 Minutes interview. She was also found to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana, although I don’t know why she was searched. I can’t imagine the questions regarding the drugs were as numerous or as intimidating as the ones regarding her 60 Minutes interview. She answered ‘no comment’ to all questions put to her by police that day. She did not answer some and not others. “No comment’ was all they got out of her on any subject.

          I have to trust Ms Brown’s interpretation because she was there today with Meaghan whereas the journalist who wrote that Meaghan recanted has never seen or spoken to Meaghan. When evidence appears that disputes what Ms Brown asserts then of course I will reconsider my opinion.

          You ask me to use common sense and I like to think I always do. I question every piece of information and discard it if it doesn’t fit with the facts, but I keep it in mind in case I need to try fitting it again. I try not to squeeze conjecture and half-truths into a story where they won’t fit. Common sense told me not to believe that Meaghan had recanted after speaking to 60 Minutes. The only evidence available since, which comes from those in close contact with Meaghan, is that she did not recant so my common sense did not desert me.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            April 18, 2019 at 10:33 pm

            Your comment is noted. Good luck with your own interpretation of how the process works.

            I am asking you to use your own brain to interpret rather than to rely on Andrea’s interpretation. You are far better in reasoning than her. You don’t need to have been present in the court to know that what the prosecutor said in relation to Meaghan’s posession charge is totally independent of the 60 minutes recantation.

            I have read Ms Brown’s comments from the time she started posting on Sunday Night in July 2017. I read on another TT Article what she wrote about Meaghan. She starts her TT Comment as follows

            “I know Meagan vass, call me negative but i don’t like her one bit.”

            You can read the rest on this link

            https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/08/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt/

            But as of recent she claims to be her friend who is taking care of her! Is there a financial incentive involved?

            I wonder who is is paying for Meaghan’s I treatment in a rehabilitation facility.

      • Peter

        August 16, 2019 at 11:35 am

        Yes Lola I can see that the blog has been updated yesterday but this time the claim is that MV said something totally different to what Andrew and his co-hortt have been promoting for several months. I asked you to use your own reasoning skills rather than depend on Andy B’s interpration.

        Based on the recent comments on the Wrongful Convictions Report site, I conclude that when it was mentioned that the police interview of MV on 8th March was most likely recorded on a video, Andrew quickly contacted MV or her friend to ask whether the interview was recorded. Hence why Andrew now has a new version. As far as I am concerned, deluded people cannot be convinced with reason and logic. They need to see the evidence with their own eyes. It is a real shame that such people doubt the professional integrity of the Assistant Commissioner and the detective who interviewed Meaghan. There is absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing or cover-up by the police.

    • Lyndall

      April 18, 2019 at 11:36 pm

      Re Andrew Urban’s blog:- “Logic should tell you that had she been on the yacht then she should have the memory of how she left the yacht and whether the attackers took the body with them on a dinghy. But she stated on 60 Minutes that she has no memory of how she left the yacht. Her statement “I must have gone back to shore but I can’t, I can’t recollect how” is a very strong indicator to me that she made the whole thing up.”

      Logic and reasoning? A salient point? I’m not so convinced that “I can’t recollect” practically = “she made the whole thing up”. But I’m no expert. I haven’t followed the case like others in this forum, but simply based on the above statement I’ve come to some other potential explanations.

      I think the witness’s possibly impaired capacity has been overlooked in AU’s above reasoning and it should be at least one thing to consider when making any judgements about Meaghan Vass’s apparent inconsistent memory of events back then. Given that the witness MV was a self-confessed heavy drug user up until very recently (wasn’t she?), I think it’s unreasonable to expect that she would’ve been in a completely drug-free, clear-minded state and able to remember everything in detail that one particular night. So, in other words, if MV was under the influence of drugs then a lack of complete memory is understandable and it does not strongly indicate that she’s being deceptive.

      But even apart from (or in addition to) the above, we should consider the possible effect on someone who has just witnessed an unplanned and very frightening, brutal event. In MV’s case, I imagine there are also some possible exacerbating circumstances which may help to further explain her unbearably bad experience and any consequent negative effect on her memory about that night.

      The below points and rough scenario are how I imagine I’d feel and think if I were in MV’s shoes:
      – the perpetrator was MV’s friend or someone in her group of (likely shady) associates and she’s fearing what that all now implies;
      – feeling trapped, vulnerable and in immediate danger stuck out on the yacht at night, powerless to stop the horrific event unfolding and unable to even get away from the traumatic scene or call for help; but then still reliant on the same perpetrator and/or the other member (i.e. your friends) to safely take you back to shore;
      – instinctively knowing that by simply being present you’re now completely trapped and involved as part of the terrible crime – the reality is likely too much to process & cope with. (Perhaps made even worse if affected by hard drugs i.e. unable to think straight?).

      Please don’t get hung up on incorrect crime-scene details of the imaginings above – it’s just a rough setting to capture what I imagine as the extreme emotional angst and fear that MV could have suffered at the scene.

      I conducted a quick search which revealed that there are a couple of possible explanations for memory loss or an inconsistent memory of a traumatic or bad experience.

      Could MV’s inability to remember much of surrounding details be explained by either a certain type of ‘Dissociative Amnesia’ or the other possible effect as described further below?

      Dissociative Amnesia:- https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/dissociative-disorders/dissociative-amnesia

      Memory loss of context:- “Bad experiences can cause people to strongly remember the negative content itself but only weakly remember the surrounding context, and a new study has revealed how this happens in the brain. The study has important implications for understanding conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
      Source: University College London. “Why bad experiences are remembered out of context.” Science Daily, 10 May 2016. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160510213316.htm

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 20, 2019 at 12:43 pm

        It was stated elsewhere by Colin McLaren that Meaghan told him in early 2017 via phone that she left the yacht on a dinghy, thus leaving her two companions behind without a dinghy. But on 60 Minutes, Meaghan said that she couldn’t recall how she left the yacht.

        SN-F supporters are aware of the changing and inconsistent stories but aren’t saying anything because they are now fixated on believing what Meaghan said on 60 Minutes. I don’t think they are interested in the truth. They just believe anything that might help Sue’s defence.

        To me, it is just a pile of lies. My bet is that someone with a vested interest has indirectly influenced Meaghan to go on 60 Minutes to say that she was on the yacht. It will be interesting to trace who is paying for Meaghan’s treatment and the stay at a rehabilitation facility on mainland. How can a homeless and financially struggling person afford such an expensive intreatment at a rehabilitation facility shortly after Justice Brett announced his decision? I wouldn’t be surprised if the cops are tracing the source of the funds.

        Ps: There is a claim by Karen Keefe on Andrew Urban’s blog that Andrea Brown got paid to help get Meaghan off to Melbourne for the 60 Minutes interview. There is thus some indication that someone is using Meaghan’s associates to influence Meaghan. I hope that the cops get to the bottom of this. I also read that someone from Bali got involved recently in relation to some matters. Who has connections to Bali? I am aware of only one person in the SN-F camp who has connections to Bali.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 20, 2019 at 12:58 pm

        Further to my reply:

        This is from a comment by Andrea Brown posted on April 6, 2019 at 10:39 pm

        at
        https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/06/meaghan-vass-eye-witness-testimony-changes-everything/

        “I’d also like to make mention that the founder of this rehab centre came from Bali to Hobart to personally go to court and have her bail varied as tas pol thought it necessary for her to sign in weekly, something even the judge thought was over the top.”

        I wonder whether a certain high profile person in the SN-F camp who has some connection to Bali had anything to do with Meaghan going to the mentioned rehab centre.

  13. Dr Peter Lozo

    April 17, 2019 at 10:34 pm

    Are Sue’s supporters about to have a meltdown?

    By reading Andrew Urban’s recent blogs that are related to the news about Meaghan recanting her 60 Minutes story I get a feeling that Sue’s supporters are falling apart and are questioning the role of the police force as well as the way the two recent news articles were written.

    See the following two links

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/16/update-sue-neill-fraser-key-witness-denies-recanting-to-police/

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/04/15/sue-neill-fraser-case-key-witness-denies-recanting-to-police/

    One person noted as follows:

    “I surmise that most of those commenting here are angry at the prospect of having to face, sooner or later, the strong possibility that Meaghan was not on Four Winds and that she has no idea who killed Bob Chappell. I can sense that the anger is directed at the police and at the journalists who reported that Meaghan changed her story again.”

    When people start whinging to the extent shown on Andrew’s blog it is a sign that their emotions are controlling them. It is a sign that a meltdown is expected.

    • Lola Moth

      April 18, 2019 at 5:59 pm

      If Sue’s supporters seemed to be having a meltdown it was probably because they knew Meaghan Vass did not recant after the 60 minutes interview and they were concerned that someone had deliberately fed a journalist porkies in order to discredit her as a witness. In light of the recent release of information that MV answered ‘no comment’ to all questions put to her by the police after being picked up post the 60 minutes interview, they were right to be upset at this brazen attempt to discredit a crucial witness before this very high profile appeal is heard.

  14. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    April 15, 2019 at 12:07 pm

    “Yacht murder witness changes her tune again”

    “The star witness for Susan Neill-Fraser’s murder appeal has again changed her story, in a blow to those hoping to secure the convicted murderer’s freedom.”

    Ms Vass, whose DNA was found on the yacht, is understood to have told police she lied to the show because she felt it was the only way to make the case go away.

    She told officers the truth was the evidence she gave in person and under oath to the Tasmanian Supreme Court in October 2017.

    This was that she had never been on the yacht, knew nothing of the murder and had been coerced into saying otherwise, in an April 2017 statutory declaration, by an associate of Neill-Fraser.”

    For further details see

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/yacht-murder-witness-changes-her-tune-again/news-story/ac8ddeb423bd7c0befc6878770126928

    • Lola Moth

      April 15, 2019 at 5:32 pm

      I will believe that information when it comes from Meaghan Vass herself rather than from an un-named source via a journalist.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 15, 2019 at 8:01 pm

        You obviously don’t believe what Meaghan stated by herself in front of the then trial Judge Blow in late 2010 and then in front of Justice Brett in late 2017.

        Will you believe her if and when she appears in front of the Appeal Court judges?

        What do you think will be different if and when Meaghan appears in a Court of Law for the third time about this case?

  15. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 27, 2019 at 10:37 am

    An example of how a boom on a mast can be used to lift or lower a heavy object

    See my Facebook post:

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=967458036790929&id=100005802249120

    I will use the idea shown in the photograph to present a hypothesis of how a physically weak person could have used a winch and a boom on the main mast of Four Winds to extract a dead body from below the deck via a saloon skylite hatch and then transferred the body (in air) to the location of the starboard boarding gate for lowering onto a dinghy (or below the surface of the water) and then tied to the dinghy.

    The important thing to note is that booms on yachts aren’t fixed to always stay in the same position. They can be swung so that the end of the boom hangs over the edge of the yacht. Yacht boom also have a block and tackle (a set of pulleys) that can be used to lift heavy objects. Someone who is reasonably experienced with yachts can be expected to know how to rig up the winch and the boom to lift heavy objects with relative ease. A closed loop winching arrangement overcomes the problem associated with non self-tailing winches.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 27, 2019 at 3:48 pm

      This brief YouTube video is the closest thing I could find on the internet to show how a yacht boom can be swung to be over water and then used in combination with a winch on the main mast to lift (or lower) a person.

      Watch “Annie Dinghy to Deck” on YouTube

      https://youtu.be/XXDK3khR7hc

      Note that the man is winching the woman up onto the yacht via the use of the boom and a winch. When the woman is lifted above the rail of the yacht the boom is then swung back to be completely over the yacht, thus shifting the woman as well.

      After seeing the above video it ought to be easy for people to now imagine the reverse scenario, as it applies to the SN-F case and the Four Winds yacht, where Bob’s lifeless body could have been easily winched through air from the roof of the saloon to near the end of the boom that is positioned such that the boom is over the starboard boarding gate, and then lowering the body onto a dinghy (or below the surface of the water) and then tied to the dinghy.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 27, 2019 at 8:32 pm

      Annie lowering herself from the deck of a yacht onto her dinghy.

      Watch “Annie Deck to Dinghy” on YouTube

      https://youtu.be/mfc6U8a_AWk

      Isn’t is easy to lower a body from the deck onto a dinghy if you had the technical know-how of using the boom and its accessories: the pulley system, etc?

      Now go and watch what George Martyn did on Episode 3 of Undercurrent. The relevant timeframe is 19:30 – 22:00. Also note that he didn’t use an inflatable dinghy. One can rest a body across the bow of an inflatable dinghy with ease and then just push it off with feet whilst laying down.

      This is the link for Episode 3 of Undercurrent:

      https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation?episode-id=UNDR01-003

      Annie deck to deck transfer

      Watch “Annie Deck to Dock” on YouTube

      https://youtu.be/56J0PQYNNak

      I hope that Sue’s supporters learn something useful from the 3 videos about Annie’s ability to overcome her physical disability by using the mechanical systems to her advantage.

      Note: Annie is a T12 paraplegic. Patients with an injury at the T9 – T12 levels may experience: Good upper body control depending on the level of cord damage. Lack of function in the legs and/or torso, resulting in paraplegia. Lack of bowel and/or bladder control. Possible reduced ability to control the trunk of the body or abdominal muscles.

  16. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 26, 2019 at 11:02 am

    My analysis of Colin McLaren’s hypothesis of body extraction from the saloon of the yacht

    See this post on my Facebook:

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=966925350177531&id=100005802249120

    My hypothesis of body extraction from the saloon of the yacht

    See this post on my Facebook:

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=952213084982091&id=100005802249120

    Note: I am yet to provide a full explanation of how the winch and the boom could have been used to move the body across the deck (in air) to a suitable location (the starboard boarding gate) to then lower onto the dinghy (or just below the surface of the water) and then tied to the dinghy.

    Sue re-arranged the crime evidence on the deck of Four Winds after she was instructed not to touch anything

    See this post on my Facebook:

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=958649941005072&id=100005802249120

  17. Dr Peter Lozo

    March 26, 2019 at 10:31 am

    My opinion on some recent comments on Andrew Urban’s blog

    This Comment is aimed at addressing some of the comments on

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/23/open-letter-to-the-killers-of-bob-chappell/#comments

    There is no scientific evidence linking one of the men (Wroe) to Four Winds or its dinghy. He provided his DNA and fingerprints to police several years ago. No match to any exhibits.

    “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.”

    https://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/tasmania-police-statement-2-susan-neill-fraser-case/

    There isn’t any information on whether the other man (Meaghan’s then boyfriend, Sam) provided his fingerprints and DNA.

    There is no scientific evidence linking Meaghan to the Four Winds dinghy nor is there any other area of the Four Winds yacht that can be forensically linked to her other than the spot on the walkway in front of the boarding gate. There is no evidence that Vass and Wroe knew one another. Vass denied knowing Wroe.

    All you have against the two men are the words of a lady who keeps changing her story.

    Garry is confusing the size of the visible dark stain (said to be about the area of a 50c coin) with the size of the luminol positive reaction (said to be the area of a dinner plate). He, and many others, are naively assuming that when the DNA sample was originally deposited that the initial deposit covered the same area that the luminol reacted to several days after the deposit was made.. What non-scientists (including Colin McLaren) are totally oblivious to is the high likelihood that the visible substance that was deposited as a small dark stain (the area of 50c) on the deck of Four Winds, and which contained Meaghan’s DNA, was exposed to weathering effects (in particular wind and water spray picked up from the surface of the river by the wind and carried onto deck) for a period of few days. These physical weathering effects in all likelihood could have caused leakage and spread of whatever red blood cells were in that small dark substance. I am working towards doing experiments to test how the two listed weathering effects (wind and water spray) affect the area over which luminol will react to blood that is mixed in with saliva and then deposited via a chewing gum. See here for the beginning of my study

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=958006884402711&id=100005802249120

  18. William Boeder

    March 25, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    Dr. Peter Lozo, for the greater good of all mankind your jottings and ponderations toward your stature as an important scientist, will not cause even a slight zephyr of breeze to form a ripple upon the oceans of this World in its quest toward that greater goodness aforementioned, as can enhance the destiny of all mankind.

    Person’s with an unconscienable zest for bias that seek to force their speculative deliberations onto the very people that have their best inclination to the 2 paramount national authorititive embodiments, law and justice, that necessarilly compel these needs be delivered into this State of Tasmania.

    Where is your response to your improprietal lean upon Tasmania’s government authorities?

  19. Dr Peter Lozo

    March 25, 2019 at 4:26 pm

    In his comment referred to above, Garry quoted the following extract from the bottom of page 672 of the Trial Transcript:

    “Thank you. Now give me the size of the area that tested positive….Yes, well approximately 210 by 260 was the size of the area that I drew, so the actual area that was posited would be slightly smaller than that.”

    I almost agree with what Garry typed in the brackets after the above paragraph.

    I bet that the error is a transcription error (rather than a typo) made by the court stenographer. Based on the context of the question that was asked of her by Mr Gunson, I agree with Garry that the forensic scientist (Deb McHoul) said the following (my emphasis is in bold)

    “Yes, well approximately 210 by 260 was the size of the area that I drew, so the actual area that was positive would be slightly smaller than that.”

    Anyone who understands enough about auditory perception knows how easy it is to misinterpret a spoken word for another very similar sounding word unless one carefully follows the context in which the word was expressed. Court stenographers often make transcription errors when not paying careful attention to the context of what is being discussed. Hence why I strongly believe that all criminal trials should be video taped.

    I think that the person who writes lots of comments (mostly silly opinions in my view) under the pseudonym of ‘MM’ on Andrew’s blog didn’t quite get that there is a transcription error. That person should post here so that their reasoning on this case can be questioned by a scientist.

  20. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 25, 2019 at 12:45 pm

    My post on the 60 Minutes Facebook

    Yesterday I posted this:

    “I claim that a winch on the main mast, in conjunction with the boom on the main mast, was used to winch out Bob’s body from below the deck via the saloon skylite hatch. Here is a link to my FB post where I summarise my winch-boom hypothesis.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=952213084982091&id=100005802249120

    I disagree with Colin McLaren’s theory that two or more people extracted the body manually, with only the aid of rope, via the skylite hatch. Colin overlooked the evidence of a large red winch handle in a winch on the main mast. He also overlooked the evidence that rope went from that winch to the saloon skylite hatch. See the crime scene photograph on my FB post.”

    See here

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=635648683561751&id=206832076052782

    Ps: I also posted the above yesterday on Eve Ash’s Facebook. She deleted it within less than 24 hours and also deleted my exchange with another person (Aldo Milin).
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2267823736613139&id=221310474597819&comment_id=2269004769828369&ref=bookmarks

  21. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 24, 2019 at 9:07 pm

    A summary of Meaghan Vass’ changing statements

    Way back in April 2015 when I started researching this case I read many of Barbara Etter’s blogs on her own website (no longer running). This is what I copied from one of Barbara’s blogs and had it posted on TT in 2016.

     

    “The same detective also told the court that when he originally spoke to Ms Vass that she indicated she believed that she may have been hanging around the Goodwood area at the time of Mr Chappell’s disappearance (CT p.824).”

     

    Then there was this:

     

    “In addition to this, on 23 March 2012 a typed statement was actually taken by Tasmania Police from the homeless girl, after Sue Neill-Fraser’s lawyer wrote to the Commissioner of Police in February 2012 requesting that statements be taken from Ms Vass and the two homeless men spoken to by police on the Marieville Esplanade foreshore on 27 January 2009 from whom statements had never been taken. These interviews led to another man being pulled in by police for interview.

    In her 2012 statement, only provided to the legal team in 2014, after several requests for access, Ms Vass stated:”

    She had never been to Sandy Bay;
    She had never been on any yacht in her life;
    She never went onto the Four Winds;
    She had no idea how her DNA came to be on the boat;
    She did not recall having any property stolen or removed that may have had contact with the boat;
    She had not been at the waterfront at any time that she could remember.”

     
    Thus, if we review Meaghan’s statements over the years we end up with the following list related to whether or not she ever boarded Four Winds:

    2010 (at Sue’s trial): WASN’T on the yacht
    2012 (affidavit to police): WASN’T on the yacht
    April 2017 (Stat Dec to Sue’s defence team via Colin McLaren): WAS on the yacht
    Oct 2017 (in the Supreme Court): WASN’T on the yacht
    Feb 2019 (Affidavit to 60 Mins & interview): WAS on the yacht
    11 March 2019 (re-interviewed by police): contradicted her 60 Minutes statement, therefore can assume that she said that she WASN’T on the yacht

    Ps: it was reported in August 2017 that

    “Vass allegedly confided in her mother that she was under intense pressure to help clear Neill-Fraser. She seemed scared and erratic”

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/death-on-the-derwent-in-search-of-the-truth-20170825-gy4aui.html

  22. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 24, 2019 at 3:43 pm

    Forensic expert opinion on the age of the DNA sample on the deck of Four Winds

    “Mr Coates pondered the length of time Ms Vass’s DNA could have lasted after Australia Day, 2009.

    “Given the significant amount of DNA and the fact it hadn’t degraded at all, is it your opinion that the DNA is … much more likely to have been deposited there shortly before a swab was taken on January 30?” he asked.

    “In terms of survival of biological material, we’re talking days,” Mr Jones said.

    “I’ll be favouring … one or two days.”

    https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/5024934/dna-questioned-in-susan-neill-fraser-murder-appeal/

    Based on the above opinion by the forensic scientist, Maxwell Jones of the Victorian Forensic Science Department, Meaghan’s DNA was deposited two or more days after 26th. That is, when the yacht was in Goodwood.

  23. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 23, 2019 at 6:44 pm

    Andrew Urban’s “Open letter to the killers of Bob Chappell”

    See here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/23/open-letter-to-the-killers-of-bob-chappell/#respond

    The first two paragraphs are:

    “You will be caught. You will be charged. You will be convicted. You will be heavily sentenced. But you can shave years off your sentence.

    One of you will be charged with murder – your lawyer can argue for manslaughter. The other will be charged with being accessory to murder/ manslaughter.”

    This is (grammar corrected version) what I submitted to the above blog under my initial of ‘P’.

    “Very amusing!

    Meagan Vass has pointed the finger at her then boyfriend. His name is mentioned in this news article https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-23/stephen-gleeson-perverting-course-of-justice-sue-neill-fraser/9581706

    I saw that he has a Facebook account. If you are so confident than Meaghan Vass spoke the truth on 60 Minutes, and in her Feb 2019 affidavit, then why don’t you contact him directly and ask for his opinion about the statements that Meaghan made on 60 Minutes about him? You can break this case wide open by interviewing him (Sam D!”

  24. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 23, 2019 at 12:05 pm

    Impairment to brain development by substance abuse during teenage years

    It takes 20 – 25 years for the human brain to fully develop. The prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision making and impulse control, is the last to reach maturity at around the age 25.

    Meaghan Vass was described in Court as
    “junkie, powder-keg and ice head”, see

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/excop-denies-leaning-on-addict/news-story/593f647b9e16293ada15599124de745f

    Imagine what impairment to brain development might be caused by regular use of strong drugs such methamphetamine (‘ice’) during teen years when the brain hasn’t yet fully developed. When I watched Episode 6 of Undercurrent, followed by watching the 60 Minutes interview of Meaghan, I observed that she had a great difficulty in regulating her emotions and impulsivity.

    Here are links to a few useful insights into how substance abuse and addiction to heavy drugs affects the brain development.

    “How Drug Abuse Affects Teenage Brain Development”

    https://youtu.be/XZEU08BVV6o

    “Understanding Teen Brain Science & How Drugs Impact the Brain”

    https://youtu.be/rIAszfRYTLY

    For those who are scientifically inclined:

    “The Neuroscience of Addiction”

    https://youtu.be/aOSD9rTVuWc

    Ps: I am not an expert in the field; my knowledge is self thought and is related to my scientific research interest in understanding how the cortex works and how consciousness arises in neural circuits.

    • abs

      March 23, 2019 at 4:23 pm

      so if you’re not an expert then don’t comment making the knid of inferences that litter you posts (e.g. Vass is not to be believed due to past drug use). As an expert myself, the drug use you highlight, on it’s own, provides little to no insight as to whether Vass has been truthful or not in her interview and stat dec.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 23, 2019 at 5:14 pm

        My opinion about whether Vass was truthful on 60 Mins is largely based on other matters.

        The above is for people’s understanding of what happens to the brain (its development and its function) when it is exposed to drugs before the brain has matured.

        • abs

          March 24, 2019 at 3:49 pm

          yet you infer on whether Vass is to believed or not in reference to her drug use, don’t you?

          what point are you trying to make by highlighting her past drug use?

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 24, 2019 at 6:54 pm

            You can interpret it any way you wish.

            The point is that I DID NOT say that because Meaghan used drugs that therefore she can’t be trusted.

            I inferred that her behaviour (lack of control over her emotions and impulsivity) can be understood if one considers the effect of several years of regular intake of drugs, such as ice, before the age of 20, on the development of the brain.

            Whether or not she is to be believed depends principally on other factors: her changing story and various inconsistencies, etc.

          • abs

            March 25, 2019 at 9:56 am

            your comment below (has no reply option so I post above) –

            “I inferred that her behaviour (lack of control over her emotions and impulsivity) can be understood if one considers the effect of several years of regular intake of drugs, such as ice, before the age of 20, on the development of the brain.” Peter.

            what expertise do you have to make this clinical assessment? A clinical psychologist, functioning ethically and professionally, would NOT draw this conclusion nor make inference in a public setting due to not having had the opportunity to undertake an extensive, face-to-face clinical assessment of the person in question.

            Do you understand this?? that it is unethical and unprofessional for a qualifiied specialist, such as a clin psych, to publically infer that a person has pathological emotional dysregulation because of past drug use (the term ‘pathological’ is brought into play because you linked past drug use to lack of emotional control).

            so, if it is unethical and unprofessional for a qualified specialist to publically make the type of comments you make, what does it mean for yourself??

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 25, 2019 at 12:12 pm

            “A clinical psychologist, functioning ethically and professionally, would NOT draw this conclusion nor make inference in a public setting due to not having had the opportunity to undertake an extensive, face-to-face clinical assessment of the person in question.

            Do you understand this?? that it is unethical and unprofessional for a qualifiied specialist, such as a clin psych, to publically infer that a person has pathological emotional dysregulation because of past drug use (the term ‘pathological’ is brought into play because you linked past drug use to lack of emotional control).

            so, if it is unethical and unprofessional for a qualified specialist to publically make the type of comments you make, what does it mean for yourself??”

            And?

          • William Boeder

            March 25, 2019 at 1:04 pm

            abs, just furthermore of the ‘extreme apprehended bias’ held by the increasingly non-credible South Australian proffessional.
            Given that person’s claims of his authoritative professionalism, well it kinda pleases me that I am not one of their arrogant irrational and prejudicial-judgement and academic-superflous persons.

          • abs

            March 25, 2019 at 4:21 pm

            So I see you fail to back your position, nor acknowledge what I demonstrate about you lacking professional and ethical conduct in presenting yourself here as a source of valid information.

            RE Vass’s previous drug use and her emotional regulation in an interview: Having viewed your behavior on this site, I am not surprised.

            William, the bias is strong in this one.

          • Russell

            April 1, 2019 at 3:10 pm

            I think the non-medical doctor may have taken a few too many drugs before he was 20. Adelaide’s well known for it.

          • Alan Arkle

            April 13, 2019 at 9:03 am

            Its amazing how a physicist’s intelligent comments draw ire from the emotionally invested SNF supporters who seem desperate to quell any opposing views. I think Dr Lozo’s view is interesting and add a dimension that is required.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 23, 2019 at 6:10 pm

        Are you aware of what the Assistant Police Commissioner said on 11th March and then again after Justice Brett announced his decision?

        I rather trust the police detectives and the Assistant Police Commissioner than a person whose brain has been significantly impaired by drug addiction during teen years and has kept changing her story a number of times.

        I hope that you are sufficiently well informed about several inconsistencies that have arisen in this story regarding Meaghan and in particular what Kareen Keefe, Colin McLaren and Meaghan Vass have been saying since Karen Keefe started talking to Colin McLaren in 2016.

        Are you sure you believe it possible that Meaghan has a memory of seeing her then ex-boyfriend beat Bob for 20 minutes or so but she has no memory of how she left the yacht?

        There is some 300 metres of water between the mooring of Four Winds and the river bank. In one version of the story, Meaghan ran off on a dinghy leaving her companions behind on Four Winds without a dinghy. In another version, her then boyfriend took her back to shore and returned to Four Winds. In the final version, Meaghan can’t remember how she left the yacht. Was she alone on the dinghy and did she know how to get the motor started? Did Sam tell her how he and the other guy managed to leave Four Winds – did they swim whilst also towing a dead body? Or did they all, including the dead body of Bob Chappell, leave Four Winds together on one dinghy?

        In one version of the story, told by Colin McLaren, it was Paul Wroe who killed Bob. In another version of the story, the recent version by Meaghan herself, is that it was her then boyfriend (Sam D) who killed Bob.

        • William Boeder

          April 13, 2019 at 1:26 pm

          Dr Peter Lozo, my condolences to the late wife of Alan Arkle, while her husband appears here as the the latest afficiendo of your endeavours relating to the now discredited hypothetical construct you had put together and presented to this forum……per your unsupported speculative dissertation against the interests of Ms. Sue Neill-Fraser.
          Seems this very elderly gent is a resident of England.

          http://tributes.smh.com.au/obituaries/smh-au/obituary.aspx?n=saidie-arkle&pid=164780511

          The second link re Alan Arke & sons England……….

          https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09843371/officers

          Do please advise me if I have introduced a different person in the name of Alan Arkle, to your re-entry into this lately closed much-commented article?

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 25, 2019 at 5:20 pm

        “At a job interview for a new receptionist:

        “I see you used to be employed by a psychologist. Why did you leave?”

        “Well, I just couldn’t win. If I was late to work, I was hostile; if I was early, I was anxious; and if I was on time, I was obsessional.”

        • abs

          March 26, 2019 at 2:14 pm

          Peter, your attempt to smear my contribution by making some attempt at assailing psychologists is, apart from being kinda juvenile, a reflection of you, tiger. And it is quite consistent with your undignified behavior on this site, which includes constant self-promotion as the ‘expert’, constant dismissal of other people’s contribution through reference to your self-proclaimed expertise, and creation of other alias’ to deceptively give impression that your position is more broadly supported.

          yet you have failed to answer two simple questions, which I repeat here-

          Do you understand that it is unethical and unprofessional for a qualified specialist, such as a clin psych, to publicly infer that a person has pathological emotional dysregulation because of past drug use if that specialist has not had the opportunity to undertake an extensive, face-to-face clinical assessment of the person in question?

          so, if it is unethical and unprofessional for a qualified specialist to publicly make the type of comments you make, what does it mean for yourself?

          your questions to me are irrelevant, why? because unlike you, I don’t present myself here as an expert claiming I know what happened.

          My self-concept is secure and thus I feel no need for such self-serving attention seeking. I readily accept that I don’t know how Bob was murdered and this has always been my position.

    • William Boeder

      March 23, 2019 at 5:14 pm

      Dr. Peter Lozo, given your non-expertise in the matter of complexity inherent to the human cortex, one has to question your motive to ascribe to the negative values implicit in their reference to MS Meaghan Vass?
      I am one of the many persons that attend to the Tas Times forum, wherein a great many of same no longer seek to be bothered with your bold preconceptions or be it your since invalidated evidence analysis.

      I would like to have you explain to me the purpose of your contacting State authorities in Hobart, to obtain some form of inhouse garble relating to myself, or be it of my perceived inclination to disconformity, relating to the improper governance by this State government in many of its claims and promises?

      Furthermore, how did this purpose of yours provide its relevance to the commonly stated unsafe decision handed down to SN-F that had determined her resultant conviction?

      What was the basis for your authority to proceed to question my character and lawful status?

      For your immediate reference I have no legal convictions of any kind. However I have held a long term of correspondence toward Tasmania’s Police Commissioner.

      My old friend Mr Oxford offers his interpretation of my presumed disconfirmatory.
      ADJECTIVE
      Showing that a belief or hypothesis is not or may not be true.

      ‘disconfirmatory evidence to challenge the fear response’
      ‘they were oblivious to disconfirmatory data’

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 23, 2019 at 6:55 pm

        I am not biased in whom I contact. I had contact with Colin McLaren too.

        I am preparing an email for Mr Robert Richter QC to inform him about the critical crime scene evidence (photo 7 in the Trial Transcript) and about the fact that Sue rearranged that crime scene evidence even though the police detectives warned her not to touch anything after she was allowed to board the yacht.

        You can see the crime scene photo 7 below Colin McLaren’s picture in this news article by Andrew Rule of March 2018.

        https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/andrew-rule-twists-in-the-tale-of-bob-chappell-murder-mystery/news-story/e4b2b0513ae3fb74cdc06d7ae995c682

        Please do notice the large red winch handle in a winch on the main mast that has rope going to the skylite hatch through which the body of Bob Chappell was extracted from below the deck (accoording to Colin McLaren). I am sure that Mr Richter would like to know what Mr McLaren omitted during his assessment of the crime scene evidence.

        • William Boeder

          March 23, 2019 at 7:26 pm

          Dr Peter Lozo, you have failed to answer my question relating to one of your prior disparaging braggadacio claims, why is this so?
          Also I have been tasked with the revelation “that your credibilty has since been sunk by yourself into a deepening abyssmal low.”

        • William Boeder

          March 23, 2019 at 9:41 pm

          Dr Peter Lozo, I would like to proffer to you my opinion with regard to your correspondence with Mr Robert Richter QC. My having spoken with Mr Richter on 3 prior occasions suggest that whatever the theme of your letter, it is highly likely than not, will be screwed up and hurled into his Chamber’s dirt tin.

          You seem to have forgotten the reception given to this same when he arrived into Tasmania to produce his work relating to the SN-F case, then rebuffed by the 3 persons that were in attendance, one being our photogenic Will Hodgman wearing his Premier’s cap.

          I ask you again to explain to me the purpose of your contacting Tasmania’s State Authorities in Hobart to obtain some form of in-house garble relating to myself, or be it of my perceived inclination to disconformity relating to the improper governance by this State government in many of its claims and promises?

          Furthermore, how did this purpose of yours provide its relevance to the commonly stated unsafe decision handed down to SN-F that had determined her resultant conviction?

          What was the basis for your authority to proceed to question my character and lawful status?

          (Had you been in touch with the former DPP you may have drawn out my credibility status as is alleged to be his currently held opinion.)

          Your continuing underestimation of the intellect and knowledge held by any number of individual persons that will not accept your seedy and speculative convoluted theorems, based as they are upon your prior and since invalidated history of your still unproven detail of SN-F presented case analysis.

          You should also recognize that I appear to be the only remaining Tas Times attendee that will continue to respond to your irascible delusionary speculations.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 23, 2019 at 8:39 pm

        “Dr. Peter Lozo, given your non-expertise in the matter of complexity inherent to the human cortex “

        What are you on about William? If I could claim to be an expert in any field of science then it would be on how the cortex, at least the significant portion of the visual cortex, works in concert with several subcortical strictures. Why? Because since about 1990, I studied the work of the world’s leading theoretical neuroscientist, who is based at Boston University (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Grossberg; http://sites.bu.edu/steveg/)

        Listen to him talk about the cortex and consciousness:

        Watch “Plenary 7 Neuroscience and Conciousness 1” on YouTube

        https://youtu.be/D6DFiChZ2DY

        Ps: my mid 1990’s PhD was based on Stephen’s Adaptive Resonance Theory; I also trained and supervised, about 20 years ago, one PhD research student on how the early visual cortex works.

    • William Boeder

      March 25, 2019 at 6:33 pm

      Dr Peter Lozo your choice of science does not create enough of substance to have a loaf of bread placed upon the family table.
      Unfortunately you yourself continue to shatter your own credibility.
      How about a response to my oft repeated question?

      Better were you a farm labourer without any presumption to privilege and entitlement.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 25, 2019 at 10:19 pm

        I don’t know what your emotional and societal problems are. So much anger at the society. Reminds me of a movie character, Johnny Ringo, in Toombstone.

        Watch “”Tombstone” (1993): A Man Like Johnny Ringo” on YouTube
        https://youtu.be/Joi2F60Veqo

        • William Boeder

          March 26, 2019 at 2:59 pm

          Dr Peter Lozo, you claim yourself to be something of an iconic scientific prodigy and pshycoanalysist.
          Yet this does not accord itself to the reality of your exceptional bias that you had interwoven throughout your 3 and a half years (or longer) attempted narrative, to convince each and all in this State, and elsewhere, that SN-F is absolutely guilty as charged, to having ‘murdered’ her partner.
          Yet without any fact evidence, but by your ‘power of suggestion’ reasoning.

          PSYCHOANALYSIS: (Friend Oxford)
          self-centredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.
          Narcissism most likely being that mental disorder, an alternative may be some syndrome relative to a mind avoidance dystrophy.
          Pshycoanalysis; (My own interpretation.)
          examiner of all things unsupported by fact, a speculative intent to examine the hemispheres of doubt and non-reality.
          (Now oulde friend Oxford’s interpretation:)
          A system of psychological theory and therapy which aims to treat mental disorders by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the mind and bringing repressed fears and conflicts into the conscious mind by techniques such as dream interpretation and free association.

          NARCISSISM:
          What are the 9 traits of a narcissist?
          Some narcissists may be able to control these personality traits, but some may not, and that is when they start to become dangerous.

          Arrogance and Domineering. …
          Grandiosity. …
          Preoccupation with Success and Power. …
          Lack of Empathy. …
          Belief of Being Unique. …
          Sense of Entitlement. …
          Requires Excessive Admiration. …
          Exploitative.

          Now back to your most recent response (well distant from my oft repeated relevant question.)
          There is no anger adrift in my mind, yes, I have a special interest in ‘governance failure’ that delivers our societal problems, otherwise, you are again, largely irrelevant to the greater scheme of things that require fact and reality precise to their object.

          For those persons in our Tasmanian society that refuse to come to the wise conclusion that Tasmania could be better governed by a squad of persons on a work for the dole scheme ably bearing the integrity they possess and being obliged to deliver, then that is your deserved failure by seeking some identifiable substance as is abundant in Tasmania’s feckless Liberal State government.

  25. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 21, 2019 at 7:20 pm

    Statement by Assistant Commissioner Richard Cowling

    “Assistant Commissioner Richard Cowling issued a statement this evening following Justice Michael Brett’s decision to allow Susan Neill-Fraser to appeal her murder conviction for a second time.

    “Tasmania Police fully supports the legal process and remains confident in the integrity and thoroughness of the original and subsequent investigation teams,” Assistant Commissioner Cowling.

    Police reinterviewed Ms Vass earlier this month after 60 Minutes promotional material suggested a new version of events.

    “Further evidence associated with that interview will be provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    “As the matter is now confirmed to proceed to appeal, it would be inappropriate to make further comment.”

    It appears that Justice Brett wasn’t aware that Meaghan recanted her Feb 2019 affidavit when she was re-interviewed by the police a few days before 60 Minutes interview of Meaghan went to air on 10th March. Perhaps best that Meaghan fronts up to the Supreme Court when the Appeal starts and have here say there.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 21, 2019 at 10:35 pm

      Was justice achieved today by granting Sue the right to Appeal on the basis of a false affidavit that was provided by Meaghan to 60 Minutes, and from there to Sue’s defence team and then Justice Brett?

      • Lola Moth

        March 22, 2019 at 7:33 am

        “Was justice achieved today by granting Sue the right to Appeal”

        The answer is YES.

        An appeal is not a new trial. Sue will have to win her appeal before she can be retried. Winning the right to appeal means there was enough evidence that was not properly brought to the jury for that jury to make informed decisions. The evidence brought to them may have been wrong or spurious. There may be new witnesses. Anything that should have been part of the original trial but was not presented can now be brought into the light.

        The number of comments on this article alone show there are many questions that need to be answered for SN-F to be seen to have been fairly tried. You, Peter, have presented so much of your extensive work on this subject here and it also should be available to the Crown to help bolster their case if necessary.

        I hope Sue wins her appeal. This case needs to be retried with all the evidence now available.

        I also hope that MV has somewhere safe she can get clean and turn her life around so this case can be put behind her with a clear conscience.

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          March 22, 2019 at 9:14 am

          Had you read Justice Brett’s decision you would have noted that he wasn’t required to make a decision on whether Meaghan’s latest affidavit was credible.

          Had Meaghan provided that affidavit directly to Sue’s defence team and then to Justice Brett it is likely that she would have faced a charge of perversion of justice. You are aware that Meaghan was re-interviewed by the police two or so days before 60 Minutes program was aired. You are aware what the Assistant Police Commissioner stated on 11th March.

          You are aware that in the Supreme Court (in 2010 and in 2017) Meaghan stated that she wasn’t on the yacht.

          It is my opinion that a MoJ occurred yesterday because a false affidavit was used by the Court to grant the right to Appeal. If you disagree with me then just follow the news to see how it will turn up.

        • Geraldine Allan

          March 22, 2019 at 11:36 am

          Lola,

          Bret J, para 50 writes …

          “The evidence proving each of the out of court representations by Ms Vass constitutes evidence for the purpose of the ground of appeal. This is not in dispute. At a new trial, Ms Vass would either give evidence consistent with the representations, or inconsistent with them. If she gave inconsistent evidence, as she did before me, then evidence proving the representations could well become admissible to prove a prior inconsistent statement, pursuant to s 108 of the Evidence Act. The representations would then be admissible for a hearsay purpose, that is to prove the truth of the facts asserted in the representation.”

          Here’s the relevant section. EVIDENCE ACT 1995 – SECT 108A

          108A Admissibility of evidence of credibility of person who has made a previous representation

          (1) If:
          (a) evidence of a previous representation has been admitted in a proceeding, and
          (b) the person who made the representation has not been called, and will not be called, to give evidence in the proceeding,
          credibility evidence about the person who made the representation is not admissible unless the evidence could substantially affect the assessment of the person’s credibility.
          (2) Without limiting the matters to which the court may have regard for the purposes of subsection (1), it is to have regard to:
          (a) whether the evidence tends to prove that the person who made the representation knowingly or recklessly made a false representation when the person was under an obligation to tell the truth, and
          (b) the period that elapsed between the doing of the acts or the occurrence of the events to which the representation related and the making of the representation.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 22, 2019 at 1:41 pm

            But wasn’t the Crown at a disadvantage because the law didn’t require Justice Brett to decide whether Meaghan’s latest affidavit was credible?

            Aren’t you curious why Meaghan didn’t provide her latest affidavit directly to Neill-Fraser’s lawyers so that they could then pass it to the DPP and the Court?

            Even though the police are saying that what Meaghan told them couple of weeks ago contradicts what she said on 60 Minutes, and thus contradicts her latest affidavit, she cannot be charged for perversion of justice because she tendered her affidavit to a media organisation rather than to Sue’s lawyers. Someone who knows the law well enough must have played a role in advising those who have been pressuring Meaghan that if she were to provide an affidavit, a false affidavit, to a media organisation rather than Sue’s lawyers, then she cannot be charged with perversion of justice, and Justice Brett didn’t have to decide on the credibility of that affidavit! How about that? Meaghan if off the hook (at least until the Appeal starts) and Sue gets her Appeal.

            What on earth is going in the minds of some people who are so gullible that they would rather trust a homeless person, whose drug addiction has affected her reasoning about the long term consequences of her actions, over the words of police detectives and the Assistant Police Commissioner?

  26. 4:55 p.m. Thursday 21Mar2019. Justice Brett has granted Susan Neill Fraser’s application for leave to make a second appeal. All over the state, and the nation, I expect, people are hanging on the streamed texts from the court, the media’s exports and so on, This has been too long in coming. It is a welcome decision. We thank the witnesses (Meaghan Vass was the first and now with her 60 Minutes ‘confession’ and accompanying affidavit: she is the last at this stage of the process). – Garry Stannus.

    • Geraldine Allan

      March 21, 2019 at 6:11 pm

      Intense emotional feelings here for Sue & her immediate family. then, for all those who, behind the scenes, so generously dedicated their time, effort and intelligence to attaining this outcome. Teamwork, with strong leadership has achieved this result.
      Finally, a tiny taste of justice for this Tasmanian family. It’s been far too long coming.
      Here is a link for those readers who are asking what next?

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-21/sue-neill-fraser-appeal-decision-explainer/10899414

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 21, 2019 at 7:44 pm

      “We thank the witnesses (Meaghan Vass was the first and now with her 60 Minutes ‘confession’ and accompanying affidavit: she is the last at this stage of the process).”

      Given that Meaghan recanted her affidavit couple of days before 60 Minutes was aired the question is whether Sue’s legal team would want to go ahead with the Appeal with Meaghan as their witness.

      How will they go ahead when the key person has recanted her affidavit about 10 days ago?

    • Geraldine Allan

      March 21, 2019 at 10:17 pm

      Garry, on my reading, Brett J at page 11, para 49, writes:

      “The evidence provided to me consists of an affidavit by Ms Vass. The affidavit purports to have been sworn on 25 February 2019. The affidavit contains direct and detailed admissions of Ms Vass’s involvement in events aboard the Four Winds on the relevant night. In particular, Ms Vass states that she was present on the yacht then with two identified male companions. She witnessed at least one of the males assault Mr Chappell. She recalls seeing a lot of blood. The affidavit does not directly address what became of Mr Chappell. Ms Vass claims that she cannot recall leaving the yacht or what happened after the assault.”

      Did you read likewise?

      • Yes Geraldine, I did read that section, [Brett J at page 11, para 49].

        “𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑀𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑠𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑛 𝑜𝑛 25 𝐹𝑒𝑏𝑟𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑦 2019. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑠𝑠’𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑛𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡. 𝐼𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟, 𝑀𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑦𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝑆ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑀𝑟 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙. 𝑆ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑟 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙. 𝑀𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑦𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡.”

        At the moment I am working my way through the whole text of the decision, having ‘fast-read’ it initially.

        One area that I will want to concentrate on will be Justice Brett’s responses to the evidence of other witnesses, such as Mssrs Brocklehurst and Maddock. I don’t have copies of the final submissions (if documentary submissions were presented to the judge, in distinction from the submissions that were made orally in court, e.g. during the Launceston session).

        Another related area of interest for me is where I encountered a mention that a 2nd/further appeal using fresh and compelling evidence may use that evidence in conjunction with evidence that had already been presented at trial.

        And a further matter that I’d want to focus on is what — perhaps in my haste — I took to be Justice Brett’s continuance of the mistaken (in my opinion) notions that
        -Mr Lorraine was viewing Bob Chappell on the Four Winds at 5:00 p.m. 26Jan2009 and that
        -Barbara Zochling had seen Bob Chappell being ‘told off’ by Sue on the morning of 26Jan2009.

        We know that the Four Winds was not 80m directly off the Derwent Lane jetty. You and I have been there and appreciate that the Four Winds was some 300 metres distant at an angle from that place. We know that Ann Sanchez (Bob’s sister) has confirmed that it was she who was berating Bob Chappell — not on Australia Day 2009 but — on the day before, the Sunday of that Australia Day long-weekend. It was the day of their trip to Bruny Island.

        Barbara Zochling was the first of the ‘defence’ witnesses to be arrested. Her arrest was ordered by the trial judge, now our Chief Justice. Might I mention the subsequent arrests of Karen Keefe and of Jeff Thompson? Might I mention the perceived retribution handed out to Barbara Etter? And the fear of arrest that both Eve Ash and Colin Thompson have, should those mainlanders be unwise enough to make a return to our unhappy island?

        ‘Claude Erskine-Browne’ (was it?) in ‘Rumpole of the Bailey’ was given to now and then delivering his gem: ‘𝙿𝚕𝚞𝚜 ç𝚊 𝚌𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚐𝚎’ …[ the more things change, it’s the more of the same thing]. For him it was the conservative’s cynical answer to everything, for us it is a caution. Tasmanians got the qualified right to second and further appeals, but we must make sure that they succeed, that the system does not overwhelm us.

    • William Boeder

      March 22, 2019 at 1:36 pm

      Delightful to the people of Tasmania both Mr. Garry Stannus and Ms. Geralidine Allan, were it not for the logic and lucid expression offered by both and held within each of your comments, along with each comment being presented in a thoroughly unbiased manner, are indeed a special credit to each of you.
      The pressure on Justice Brett was to deliver the correct decision to the people of Tasmania, as opposed to the decision favoured by the extraordinarily biased individuals that strut their professional privelige and powers of discretion behind the high protective bastion of this State’s former discordant justice department.
      (The above justice department refererence is not at all permissable as a reflection on the esteemed former late Attorney General, Ms. Venessa Goodwin.)

      Justice Brett in having delivered his decision (and it being the overwhelmingly correct decision) was so necessary given the unresolved mystery of the alleged withheld evidence, and now the new perceived evidence presenting, will expectedly at least, permit this mess of uncertainty to see the light of day.

      One must contemplate that Justice Brett was situated in an uncomfortable confronting environment and the grizzled air of the atmosphere settings beyond yon bastion….carrying the sounds of fierce gnashings of teeth, snorts of derison, the humbuggery reactions of suddenly startled colleagues….has further demonstrated his brave resolve.

      Furthmore Justice Brett had not permitted the influences of noisome others that were captivated by the unsettling unsafe conviction when delivered through our (reputed though occasionally capricious) Tasmanian Supreme Court, has appropriately set the appeal process into motion, a process available to all persons that seek to claim their innocence.
      Should there be rantings and postulations by insufferable others, then that in itself should come under the perview of our State authorities that are well able to rule persons to be in contempt….against the fullness of Tasmania’s recently introduced Rights of Appeal laws now legislated into the framework of our State’s improved justice system.

      CAPRICIOUS: Oxford Dictionary…….Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behaviour.

      ‘a capricious and often brutal administration’
      More example sentencesSynonyms
      1.1 Changing according to no discernible rules; unpredictable.
      ‘a capricious climate’

      • Geraldine Allan

        March 22, 2019 at 7:19 pm

        William, ’tis not now for us to opine if or not, Brett J has presided over a MoJ. That is the task of CCA.
        ““…However, Justice Brett went on to explain that the 2015 change to section 402A of the Criminal Code spells out that the Court of Criminal Appeal may hear a second appeal if a judge permits it “in respect of a single ground, which is that there is fresh and compelling evidence”. It would then be up to the Court of Appeal to determine if there had been a miscarriage of justice in the case, Justice Brett said. …”

        https://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/shes-not-off-the-hook-yet/news-story/f736df4c018ad78f7fd8d348f84239b5

        Btw, thanks for compliment. Under very difficult circumstances at times, I try to remain as objective as humanly possible, whilst attempting to demonstrate empathy for victims of wrongdoing. I’m conscious to only take on board any factual evidence. Also, I attempt to avoid speculation, and unqualified legal opinion and/or other opinion that seems to be way-out. There are times when I am fortunate to have access to reliable information that of course I do not publish. I respect my sources too much to breach their trust. such info assists me to a more informed position.

        When I write, “I know”, always I mean I know first hand; have direct evidence and/or sighted/heard first hand. Otherwise, if told something, even though it may seem credible, that doesn’t make it so. If the source of information is from an ‘expert’ in the legal understanding of that term, I am included to give it more weight that if it merely speculation, even if the source may suggest they are qualified. I’ve come across far too many ‘hired guns’ in my days, to believe their opinions just because they have a degree or six.

        Read Jean Lennane on hired guns, and other.
        “Compliant courts

        The over-riding problems with our courts are the adversarial system, which seems designed to hide rather than search for the truth; and presiding judges and magistrates who might as well not be there, for all the good most do in keeping proceedings and participants on the rails. I will not be making suggestions for overall reform of the court system, since Evan Whitton will no doubt be covering that. I will just outline some of the problems. An enormous problem with the whole legal system is the lack of ethics of most legal practitioners, as shown by countless examples of corruption in the system, and the almost complete absence of lawyers prepared to blow the whistle on it. Other people can and do – police for example, often at enormous personal risk – but lawyers almost never.
        https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Lennane_battered.html

        • William Boeder

          March 23, 2019 at 4:45 pm

          Thank you Geraldine, your knowledge and references confirm your reliance on fact matters to qualify your comments opinions, does indeed serve you and your integrity, immeasurably well.
          No longer can one allow one’s trust to be accorded to whatever news item or topic it may be that is offered up by Tasmania’s mainstream media news platforms, no matter that they be items of compelling headline news, the reading of, or viewing of, provide little of important substantiated fact.

          EG: the factual magnitudinal-level of wildlife slaughter occasioned by this State’s government, per the agency of both the former GBE of Forestry Tasmania, or be it the new GBE of Sustainable Timbers Tasmania. This subject matter in itself provides an example of ‘news headline omission’ rather than say a censored coverage aimed to endorse some notion of care and good governance, yet that it be found non-existent in any way at all, yet claimed as found among each of our State’s Liberal party ministers.

          Often times the ABC International news service had been in the habit of reporting news 3 days post its event (or its occurrence) yet was reported as headlines news, despite it being up to 3 days post the actual event.
          Some 12 -18 months ago I had sent a letter addressed to Ms. Michelle Guthrie, the CEO ABC at that prior time, as to why Tasmania is the recipient State receiving news 3 days post its date of event? (As often that it would render such old news as obsolete, as the matter reported had since been ratified just 2 days after its initial report.) Ms Guthrie had chosen not to reply to myself nor to my contention.

          One could interpret that by the time of the ABC presenting or issuing their 3 day old news event, then it could well be considered as news bereft of any intrinsic value, or alternatively little other than a “value-nihilism” approximating to zero.
          In my having extended on this matter, my aim is to provide a serious analysis concerning today’s mainstream media news replete with its import bearing its deadening failures.

    • William Boeder

      March 22, 2019 at 2:07 pm

      Garry, Barbara Etter had been leant upon by Tasmania’s Law Tribunal in a kerfuffle over case evidence that was exerted upon her by this State’s Law Tribunal, during her time as Counsel for Defence Sue Neill-Fraser.
      Ms. Etter has since been struck off the roll of legal practitioners in Tasmania.
      Of interest here is that this matter had not been submitted nor published in the Tasmania’s Law Tribunal list of disciplined lawyers.
      I also make reference to the number of non-recorded individual matters that have been attributed to in-State Inquiries, Judge only Supreme Court Hearings, Coronial Inquests and their findings, now add Law Tribunal Listings of disciplined lawyers, et al that have either been removed or simply not recorded along with thepublished.

      This being another realm of questionable withheld ‘special’ yet relevant and would normally be published records.

      William.

  27. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 18, 2019 at 6:08 pm

    Two photographs of the same white boat

    Here is a link to my Facebook post showing two photographs of the same white boat taken during an afternoon about an hour apart but from different vantage points. I won’t write anything as to why the white boat looks dark in the second photograph. I leave it up to SN-F supporters to try to explain what is going on in the second photograph and to also explain how the boat would look to a human observer looking directly at it.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=962549660615100&id=100005802249120

    Note: this is related to the ‘grey’ dinghy issue.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 19, 2019 at 8:54 am

      The above mentioned FB post is now visible to the public. I encourage people to look at the difference between the two photographs and then try to relate the above to the afternoon of the Australia Day 2009. There is sufficient information in the Trial Transcript, combined with an astronomical chart for that day, to work out where the sun was with respect to the mooring of Four Winds and with respect to the direction in which the eyewitnesses were looking at between 3:55 pm and 5 pm when they saw what appeared to them to be a ‘grey’ dinghy at portside of Four Winds. There is also sufficient information in the Trial Transcript about the orientation of Four Winds at 4pm – 5pm.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 20, 2019 at 12:51 pm

      Some relevant questions on the perception of colour and brightness under glare

      I hope that the two photographs of the same white boat on water, as posted on my FB, has convinced people that the location of the sun with respect to the direction in which the person is looking, combined with the strength of the glare due to sunlight reflected from the water surface, strongly influences how the boat will look to them.

      Here are a few relevant questions for people to think about:

      1. If you are passing within 50 meters or so of a white boat such that the strong sunlight reflected from the water (as in the 2nd photo on my FB) enters your eyes, will you still see the boat to be white or a shade of grey?
      2. Would a red or a yellow or a blue or a green dinghy retain is original colour and shade or will they all appear to be a shade of grey under the condition of strong glare as when strong sunlight reflection from water enters the person’s eyes?
      3. What would happen to your perception of the boat’s colour as the strength of the sunlight reflected from the water into your eyes is gradually increased?
      4. What would happen to your perception of the boat’s colour if you were to then view the boat and the strong glare through Polaroid glasses?
      5. When someone tells you that they saw a grey dinghy on water should you accept that the dinghy was actually grey or should you inquire about the viewing conditions under which the person saw the dinghy before deciding on whether the dinghy was grey or only appeared to be grey under the relevant viewing condition?
      6. Given that eyewitnesses looked at the portside of Four Winds on the Australia Day afternoon such that they were looking in the general direction of the sun, was it really relevant to show in the Court during Sue’s trial in 2010 a close up view of the four winds dinghy to one such witness (Mr Conde) to test whether that was the same dinghy he saw at portside of Four Winds? Wouldn’t it have been more relevant to show Mr Conde a photograph of what the Four Winds dinghy looked like when it is at portside of Four Winds such that that the sun is shining on the starboard side of the yacht?

      7. How relevant is the following statement of Mr Conde at Sue’s trial to whether or not he could have been looking at the 𝑄𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑟 dinghy that belonged to the Four Winds yacht on the Australia Day afternoon?

      “𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑄𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑦 𝐼 𝑠𝑎𝑤 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑛 𝐴𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎 𝐷𝑎𝑦 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟. ”

      (see page 431 of the Trial transcript)

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Peter, our reference to your original post shows that your question numbers did not arrive here.

      Similarly with your repeat post.

      Corrections as requested have been applied here manually.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Sample of what we received …

      Here are a few relevant questions for people to think about:

      If you are passing within 50 meters of a white boat such that the strong sunlight reflected from the water (as in the 2nd photo on my FB) enters your eyes, will you still see the boat to be white or a shade of grey?
      Would a white or a red or a yellow or a blue or a green dinghy retain is original colour and shade or will they all appear to be a shade of grey under the condition of strong glare?

      — Moderator

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 20, 2019 at 2:38 pm

        MODERATOR: thanks for that explanation. It looks like something is lost in the data transmission. I will in future be aware of this issue and will work out how to circumvent the problem.

        Regards, Peter.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Yes Peter, it’s most likely a formatting issue.

        Manual numbering as demonstrated is one method of sidestepping the problem.

        — Moderator

  28. Thank you TT for publishing my request for feedback on my draft transcript of that 60 Minutes ‘Vass Confession’ program. I’d like to advise readers that although Peter Lozo has responded to that draft transcript of mine, he is dreadfully in error where he advises readers to prefer the transcript of that program over mine. That transcript is available on Dr Bob Moles ‘Networked Knowledge’ website.

    You see, dear fellow readers, that transcript that Peter Lozo found on the Bob Moles website, is actually mine! I must point out that it maintains my fancy-coloured-in-blue Vass replies and italicised original formatting (which can’t be viewed on TT), but otherwise it seems to be a word-perfect post of my transcript.

    I understand that Bob Moles received my transcript from a third party (for which I am very grateful) and I understand that he was not aware that it had been compiled by me… possibly thought like Peter, that it was an official 60 Minutes transcript. Nup! It was mine, so I’d advise readers whether they stick with the transcript that I’ve posted below, or read it in its first well-formatted and coloured version (on Bob Moles’ website), they will still – in spite of Peter’s Lozos advisory – they will still get the same text. I still hope that those who read either ‘print’ version might correct me for any errors that might be found within them.

    You will see from the transcript that Meaghan Vass told viewers that
    -she was on the Four Winds. That
    -the person who she was seeing at the time was ‘sprung’ by Bob and that
    -a fight broke out. Meaghan Vass tells of
    -seeing a ‘lot of blood’,
    -of vomiting on the deck (hence her DNA) and of
    -not seeing Susan Neill-Fraser on the yacht.

    I wish that Peter Lozo would stop mentioning me in his posts, as such apparent trolling, in conjunction with his ceaseless ‘attack-from-all-quarters’ posts on anything that might serve to aid the defence program, serve (in my opinion) only to obscure the emergence of relevant and factual new information.

    garrystannus@hotmail.com

    • Rosie C-C

      March 17, 2019 at 6:10 pm

      Thanks Garry, for all the research that you have done and continue to do in support of Sue.

      I always enjoy reading your posts, but I do not enjoy the ill informed rants of Peter Lozo!

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 17, 2019 at 10:38 pm

        There is a difference between enjoying low quality and subjective opinions that typify the standard of opinions from MoJ campaigners on this case versus high quality and well reasoned objective and technically motivated opinions that bore you to death. I don’t know Kate but if SN-F supporters were to pay attention to her instead of me they will get the same opinion as they would get from me … that SN-F supporters are a deluded lot.

        Do I really need to post two photographs of the same boat, a white boat, taken mid summer between 3 pm and 5 pm, but from different perspectives, to show you that Mr Stannus has wasted heaps of time since early 2015 debating with me about something that I claim to be a scientific expert in … the field of visual perception? The debate was whether the white dinghy of Four Winds can be perceived to be grey.

    • Kate

      March 17, 2019 at 6:17 pm

      If that is your only claim to fame garrystannus, I will not be seeking your autograph.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 17, 2019 at 7:11 pm

      “He is dreadfully in error where he advises readers to prefer the transcript of that program over mine.”

      Mr Stannus, I began learning the English language when I started first year high school in 1970. For the sake of my further education in the English language, please point out to me the sentence where the now Dr Lozo advised the readers that he prefers one version over another version.

    • Geraldine Allan

      March 17, 2019 at 7:17 pm

      Garry be assured that your post above has been referred to the various forums, members of which, mostly have retired from reading this thread for obvious reasons. Btw, and for accuracy, it is not, “The full transcript of last Sunday’s 60 Minutes inyerview [sic] …”, as you are well aware. It is an excerpt of programme as it relates to the discussions between Liam Bartlett & Meaghan Vass. I know you already know that tho.

      Congrats also, for (i) generously taking the time to transcribe and (ii) sharing it for the information of those unable to directly access the program. The relevance of your constant and untiring research is not lost on those who pursue fairness, justice and transparency when compared with the cover-ups, slip-ups & wrongdoing witnessed in this most dreadful matter.

  29. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    March 16, 2019 at 12:38 pm

    Readers might be able to assist with my research. I’m asking if they can find any errors in the following (put together from my notes while watching the 60 Minutes ‘Vass Confession’ program). Any (referenced) corrections would be welcome. You can post them here or to my email address, as displayed at the bottom of my comment. Please be advised that these are my notes of what Meaghan Vass told 60 Minutes, screened last Sunday night (10Mar2019). I do not know what is contained in the affidavit which has been recently signed by her. It apparently has been sufficient for SN-F’s defence to successfully apply to Justice Brett for a reopening of the 2nd Appeal Leave-to hearings.

    In other words, Brett J’s reserved decision is now in abeyance, i.e. ‘on the back-burner’ till this fresh affidavit is properly received and considered.

    It should further be noted that what Justice Brett will consider is not what Meaghan Vass said in interview to 60 Minutes, but rather, it is that which is contained in the affidavit that she has now signed and which forms the basis for the reopening of the hearings. As such, in my opinion, matters pertaining to the affidavit may well be ‘sub judice’, while the court considers them; however, what Meaghan Vass said to the interviewer on 60 Minutes is, in my opinion, in the public forum. -gfs.

    Part I
    LIAM BARTLETT: So, you know who killed Bob Chappell?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Ah, yeh.

    LIAM BARTLETT: And it certainly wasn’t Sue Neill-Fraser?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No.

    LIAM BARTLETT: If what you’re saying is true, then…
    MEAGHAN VASS: Why would I have reason to lie?

    LIAM BARTLETT: Then Sue Neill-Fraser has been in jail for nothing
    MEAGHAN VASS: …

    LIAM BARTLETT: What do you think about that?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I thinks it’s horrible but

    LIAM BARTLETT: Why should we believe you, now? Give me one good reason!
    MEAGHAN VASS: [indistinct] I, I don’t have a good reason, really, you know [indistinct] because I sort of threw up and [still?] I’d like to see her home with her family.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Tell me a bit about what life was like for you in Hobart, around that time
    MEAGHAN VASS: Ah, I was living in women’s shelters, and, on the streets, [it was] pretty hard

    LIAM BARTLETT: Very hard. Why, why was that? Did you have problems at home?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Ahm, yeh. Family relationship breakdown – at thirteen – ahm and that resulted in womens shelters and

    LIAM BARTLETT: That’s very difficult, isn’t it, for such a young girl too
    MEAGHAN VASS: [indistinct: ‘yeh’?] it’s been pretty massive.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Why’s it taken you this long to speak up?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I don’t know, I’ve had – I’ve lost my father, I’ve been living on the streets, I’ve been hounded by everybody. It’s the right thing to do. I…

    LIAM BARTLETT: What, what sort of things have you had to put up with?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Well I’ve had no shelter, I’ve had no safety. I’ve had no, no, I haven’t been able to fend for myself, probably I’ve had no one to turn to.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Do you trust the police?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No, not really [with a bitter smile, wiping the tears from her face].

    LIAM BARTLETT: Are you clean now?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yes – yeh.

    LIAM BARTLETT: How long have you been clean?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Oh, only recent. Ah yeh, it’s been hard [with a smile of self reflective memory] a bit [‘still’?] hard [whispered].

    LIAM BARTLETT: You’re still trying to stay off it?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [she nodding]
    LIAM BARTLETT: It’s a struggle, isn’t it? I can see that
    MEAGHAN VASS: [she nodding and again – as she has done throughout the interview – meeting the eye of the interviewer, she now silent]

    LIAM BARTLETT: I can see that
    MEAGHAN VASS: [she quietly keeps herself just millimetres from breaking up]

    LIAM BARTLETT: Do you think think this will – this will help you?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [she nods]

    LIAM BARTLETT: Telling the truth will help you? Will help you with that struggle
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh I’m hoping, anyway.

    LIAM BARTLETT: So, on that day, why did you decide to go out into the bay?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I would have been along with him, um, I reckon, um no doubt he would have been knocking things off boats; um for money to get on, get on the piss and that being the case, I would have, you know, gone along, [indistinct] me that but, not so that I would so much steal, but [y’know?] to have a drink or

    LIAM BARTLETT: You were just tagging along
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh! Yep. It was something that they – he’d do often.

    LIAM BARTLETT: If they knew Bob Chappell was on board, would they have
    MEAGHAN VASS: probably not

    LIAM BARTLETT: Got on that yacht?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I mean, I can’t answer for them, I suppose but – [indistinct].

    LIAM BARTLETT:
    MEAGHAN VASS: I remember being on board, and the person that I was with had obviously been spotted by Bob – I don’t know – being told to piss off, they’ve had an argument, it’s escalated, he’s hit Bob – I don’t know what with –

    LIAM BARTLETT: So he struck him?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Quite a few times I think. Probably twenty minutes or so

    LIAM BARTLETT: Twenty minutes?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Roundabout. I’m

    LIAM BARTLETT: It went on for a while?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh. And then I – then I saw a lot of blood [her mouth crinkling down in horror/disgust] – but I can’t [indistinct: ‘give you more than that’?] I can’t remember.

    LIAM BARTLETT: The guy you were with, was hitting Bob Chappell?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [She nods]

    LIAM BARTLETT: Can you remember what he was hitting him with?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No.

    LIAM BARTLETT: And did you try to break it up?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I, I would have told, would have told the bloke I was [indistinct: ‘seeing’?] to stop or to calm down, but there’s, there’s only so much I could do. I’m only small and he’s a bigger bloke. [Indistinct: ‘Also’?] I couldn’t get him to calm down, you know –

    LIAM BARTLETT: When you say there was a lot of blood, were you downstairs, were you on the deck, were you in the cabin?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I’m – on deck I think.

    LIAM BARTLETT: And what was your reaction to that?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [indistinct: ‘It’s when’?] I’ve thrown up, the vomit.

    LIAM BARTLETT: So what mistake did Bob make? What did Bob do wrong?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Nothing – oh

    LIAM BARTLETT: Nothing at all?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [indistinct: ‘well he’?] just told [name withheld] [indistinct words] to piss off [indistinct]

    LIAM BARTLETT: He was just at the wrong place, wrong time?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh I s’pose [indistinct words]

    LIAM BARTLETT: Do you know what happened to Bob’s body?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No. Not saying, but whatever’s happened it’s been horrible.

    LIAM BARTLETT: What was the second man doing on the
    MEAGHAN VASS: I go to the bloke I was with but [indistinct: name bleeped out in earlier version, now the ‘bleeping’ not at all present on the 60 minute website 12/3/2019!]’s just called him down to the cabin

    LIAM BARTLETT: Did you go back to shore, or while they were dealing with that or did you stay on the boat?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I must have gone back to shore but I can’t, I can’t recollect how.

    LIAM BARTLETT: But, but you know that Bob Chappell was killed by, by one of the men you were with? Is that what you’re telling me?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Are you certain about that?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yes [whispered]

    LIAM BARTLETT: Did you see Sue Neill-Fraser on that yacht?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No.

    LIAM BARTLETT: She wasn’t there?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Not that I can recall, no.

    LIAM BARTLETT: If what you’re saying is true, then an innocent woman has been sitting in jail for nine years
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yes.

    Part II
    LIAM BARTLETT: What’s that man doing now?
    MEAGHAN VASS: ahm, not a real lot, I don’t think

    LIAM BARTLETT: And how angry is he going to be at you for telling the truth?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Probably furious. I’d just like to see her get home to her family.

    LIAM BARTLETT: But why now, after ten years?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Because it’s the right thing to do, you know?

    LIAM BARTLETT: But you, you could have done it eight years ago – nine years ago. You could have done it at the trial
    MEAGHAN VASS: Can I stop please, now?

    LIAM BARTLETT: Well, you can, but I just want you now to tell me from your heart.
    MEAGHAN VASS: I’ve told you I have known, I don’t have a legit, a legitimate reason for you but I’m saying for you that I’m, you know, I’m here and now I like her to go home. I’d like to see her home with her family.

    Part III
    LIAM BARTLETT: The trial of Sue Neill-Fraser, you were sixteen, at the time.
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Why didn’t you tell the truth?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Because, I was sixteen, I was homeless, I was scared, I, you know, it’s been daunting,

    LIAM BARTLETT: What were you scared of?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I was scared of everything, I

    LIAM BARTLETT: Tell me, explain that to me.
    MEAGHAN VASS: Well, what if, you know, his reaction maybe,

    LIAM BARTLETT: Who? The man who killed Bob?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeah

    LIAM BARTLETT: Did he tell you to shut up?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yes, now can I stop please?

    LIAM BARTLETT: Why did you change your mind then? [re her retracting her statement]
    MEAGHAN VASS:

    LIAM BARTLETT: Did anybody put pressure on you?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [shaking her head] Just [indistinct: ‘in fear of the law’] I think. [possibly: for fear of the law], I think.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Why have you let her sit in a jail cell for all these years?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I haven’t been able, I haven’t been able to recall all of this

    LIAM BARTLETT: Haven’t been able to or haven’t wanted to?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Probably haven’t wanted to [indistinct: ‘I …’]

    LIAM BARTLETT: So why do you want why do you want to set the record straight now?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Because it’s the right thing to do, I s’pose.

    LIAM BARTLETT: So, you know who killed Bob Chappell?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Ah, yes.

    LIAM BARTLETT: And it certainly wasn’t Sue Neill-Fraser?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No.

    LIAM BARTLETT: What would you like to see happen to Sue Neill-Fraser?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I’d like her to be able to go home to her family. I don’t have one, you know… so, sorry …

    LIAM BARTLETT: [indistinct: ‘That’s okay’?]
    MEAGHAN VASS: …that’s what I’d like and

    LIAM BARTLETT: You know the names of the two men who were involved in this murder. What do you intend to do with this information?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I don’t want, I’m not confident um saying anything, um.

    LIAM BARTLETT: But are you prepared to give those names to the police?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No … no, this is as far as …

    LIAM BARTLETT: Sooner or later for Sue Neill-Fraser to be released, you’ll have to go back to a courtroom.
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Will you be able to handle that?
    MEAGHAN VASS: … [after a little time: Nodding]

    LIAM BARTLETT: You won’t go back on your story again?
    MEAGHAN VASS: No.

    LIAM BARTLETT: How, how can you be so sure, this time round?
    MEAGHAN VASS: I just, I just am.

    LIAM BARTLETT: –
    MEAGHAN VASS: I can’t give a legitimate reason as to why anyone should believe me. And given my track record, yeh maybe they shouldn’t. But I’m here now and I’m doing all I can. I can’t, I can’t do any more than

    LIAM BARTLETT: Do you feel guilty for allowing an innocent woman to remain in jail?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Yeh it’s been pretty horrible, yeh.

    LIAM BARTLETT: So the day Sue Neill-Fraser is released, for something she didn’t do, will that be a happy day for you?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [nods]

    LIAM BARTLETT: What would you like to say to her?
    MEAGHAN VASS: Dunno … sorry for it all really. Mm, just hope she can go home to her family.

    LIAM BARTLETT: You’re sorry
    MEAGHAN VASS: [Nods]

    LIAM BARTLETT: For not speaking up?
    MEAGHAN VASS: [Nods]

    Thank you for reading.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 16, 2019 at 2:20 pm

      the full transcriopt is on Dr Moles’ Networked Knowledge website in the What’s New section http://netk.net.au/whatsnew.asp
      see 13 March 2019

      don’t tell me you spent time transcribing from the program.

    • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

      March 16, 2019 at 3:17 pm

      What’s New in the world of Miscarriage of Justice

      Whenever I need to find our what’s new I first scan through What’s New on Dr Bob Moles’ website Networked Knowledge and have been doing so since late 2011.

      http://netk.net.au/

      The full transcript of last Sunday’s 60 Minutes inyerview of Meaghan Vass was uploaded on 13 March.

      see here

      http://netk.net.au/whatsnew.asp

      The website has sn extensive database on various topics related to MoJ. Also has a very good database on various MoJ cases.

      Based on the Comment below (by Mr Stannus) I gather that some Tassy based people aren’t utilising the material that had been uploaded on Networked Knowledge website, and are wasting heaps of valuable time.

  30. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 14, 2019 at 7:30 pm

    New affidavits will be considered in Susan Neill-Fraser’s appeal

    “Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates did not object to the re-opening of the appeal. 

    Mr Coates said it was unlikely he would need to call Ms Vass back as a witness in court, however, said he would make that decision upon receiving the new affidavits. 

    “It may well be that I won’t have to cross-examine anybody,” Mr Coates said.”

    This will be very interesting. The Court was re-opened to hear Meaghan’s latest affidavit and the affidavit of the person who witnessed Meaghan signing the affidavit. I believe that this is a good decision and it will sort out the mess that was created recently by the witness who changed her story.

    https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5955754/information-in-60-minutes-segment-leads-to-re-opening-of-susan-neill-frasers-appeal/

  31. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 14, 2019 at 11:01 am

    Why do people admit to crimes they didn’t commit?

    “Of all the convicted people who have been exonerated by DNA testing, almost 30 percent confessed to crimes they didn’t commit, according to the nonprofit legal rights group The Innocence Project.

    What’s behind these false confessions? False confessions expert Saul Kassin, PhD, discussed what we know about that behavior at a congressional briefing hosted on April 29 by APA’s Science Government Relations Office.

    The psychology behind false confessions “is more difficult to comprehend than suicide,” said Kassin, a distinguished professor of psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Not having a similar experience themselves, [people don’t] fundamentally understand that they can be broken into doing things they would never dream of doing.”

    His research helps to explain why people implicate themselves. He’s found, for example, that vulnerable suspects, including teenagers, people with intellectual impairments and those with mental illness, are more likely to make false confessions, especially if they are under pressure from interrogators. Police are permitted to lie about evidence and imply promises and threats through subtle but lawful tactics.”

    Does Meaghan Vass’ personality and situation (addiction to drugs, poverty and homelessness, etc) fit the type of a person who is sufficiently vulnerable to pressure and the suggestion to confess to a crime she didn’t witness in order to reap a monetary reward if her ‘confession’ leads to Sue Neill-Fraser’s exoneration?

    Also see the relevant posts by ‘Jenny’ on

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/12/police-respond-to-meaghan-vass-admission-on-60-minutes/#comment-3761

    • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

      March 14, 2019 at 1:00 pm

      Further useful information on Why do people admit to crimes they didn’t commit?

      My aim here is to provide the readers of this thread about Mr Colin McLaren’s work on the Susan Neill-Fraser case, and the various statements made by Meaghan Vass during and since Sue Neill-Fraser’s trial in 2010, some useful real-world information, and links to expert opinions, about false confessions. This information might help the reader to make a more reliable assessment on whether the publicly available objective information indicates that Meaghan’s recent ‘confession’ on 60 Minutes was a ‘true confession’ or a ‘false confession’.

      Why people confess to crimes they didn’t commit

      “American police interrogations are built on the assumption that innocent people never confess to crimes they didn’t commit. But in fact, false confessions are fairly common. The evidence that they occur with some frequency really began to pile up in the 1990s, when DNA evidence began to exonerate convicted criminals—including many who had confessed. Since then, researchers have classified known false confession cases into three categories. Some innocent people confess voluntarily in order to attract attention. Others confess to appease an aggressive inves­tigator, desperate to put an end to a grueling interrogation—these are called “compliant” false confessions. And still other people offer “internalized” false confessions: In the interrogation process, they actually become momentarily persuaded that they’re guilty. Here are a few notable examples of these three varieties of self-incrimination.”

      For further information see here

      https://www.wired.com/2016/05/false-confessions/

      Here are couple of talks by experts in the field of false confessions, and a documentary. The experts are primarily academic psychologists who researched false confessions.

      Watch “False Confessions, Dr. Saul Kassin” on YouTube
      https://youtu.be/EBlq5TxP1ag
      Watch “Who would confess to a murder they didn’t commit? Maybe you. | Nancy Franklin | TEDxSBU” on YouTube
      https://youtu.be/c431D5Tj_aU
      Watch “The System – False Confessions” on YouTube
      https://youtu.be/PNVkMhlmoc0

      My end note: If there are people who will (under pressure) confess to a murder they did not commit, who is to say that there aren’t people who (under pressure and/or for a financial gain or a reduced sentence, etc) wouldn’t falsely confess to witnessing a crime or wouldn’t falsely confess to being a witness to a discussion about a crime that had already been committed or wouldn’t falsely confess to being hired to commit a crime, etc?

  32. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 13, 2019 at 5:07 pm

    On my observation of Andrew Urban’s approach in searching for the truth in the matter of what happened to Bob Chappell

    My online interaction with Andrew Urban earlier today ended witth the following two posts:


    Andrew

    But to make the bigger point: Mr Ellis paints a picture to the jury of Neill-Fraser lowering a bloodied body with bloody mats into the dinghy … when he never believed there was blood in the dinghy. He then tells the judge he doesn’t believe blood in the dinghy…and judge says nothing to the jury. As to Gunson’s mistake thinking he had said there was blood in the dinghy (Judge seemingly agreeing), the jury could have thought so too. Do you wish to find the truth about this case?

    Peter

    Andrew, I was being very specific and was addressing the point made in your blog on whether or not Mr Ellis made the statement that Mr Gunson attributed to him. Clearly, Mr Gunson misinterpreted what Mr Ellis said in his opening statement. That is what I wanted to emphasise via my above posts.

    If we are after the truth in the matter of happened to Bob Chappell then surely we want to first make sure that we have the correct interpretation of the trial proceedings and the evidence that was presented to the jury”

    See his ‘Wrongful Convictions Report’ blog

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/13/sue-neill-fraser-and-the-self-contradicting-dpp/#comments

    Of interest to me is Andrew Urban’s approach to searching for the truth in the matter of what happened to Bob Chappell.

    It is very obvious to me, and has been for almost four years now, that Mr Urban hasn’t really bothered to research the trial transcript properly in order to get the most complete and accurate understanding and the interpretation of the trial proceedings and the evidence that was presented to the jury.

    In the above mentioned blog, Mr Urban is incorrectly promoting the notion that the then DPP (Mr Tim Ellis) painted an incorrect picture for the jury regarding the results of the forensic tests on the dinghy. The exchange between Mr Ellis, Mr Gunson and His Honour was as a result of what Mr Gunson misinterpreted. But why didn’t Mr Urban treat it as such instead of offering a ridiculous opinion and labeling the DPP as “the self contradicting DPP”?

    I have already written about Mr Urban’s intentional suppression of evidence and misleading representation of the evidence in this case. The good example of this is how Mr Urban intentionally left out, on one of his relevant blogs, the crucial information that distinguishes the statement of a prosecution witness, Mr John Hughes, at Sue’s 2010 trial from the statement of a defence witness, Mr Grant Maddock, at Sue’s recent right-to-appeal hearing. In the blog titled ‘Sue Neill-Fraser’s final appeal – Part 1’, Mr Urban has the following caption underneath a photograph of Mr Grant Maddock: “Grant Maddock in 2009 -mistaken by a witness at the trial to be a female – possibly Sue Neill-Fraser – while rowing his dinghy late at night on Australia Day 2009”.

    My own analysis of the issue is presented below under a Comment titled ‘Rowing a Wooden Dinghy versus Motoring an Inflatable Dinghy’, posted on February 28, 2019 at 8:42 am.

    I gather that Mr Urban is an an intelligent and responsible adult and has been a film critic for a long time: https://cce.sydney.edu.au/tutor/87. Anyone who has had his experience on analysing and offering a critique on many films must have developed excellent analytical skills. But why is he misrepresenting this case and is intentionally obfuscating the information that had it been presented correctly would be interpreted differently by his readers?

    I will end this lengthy post with a few relevant extracts from a Comment posted by a TT reader, Burt.

    “Yet both the film critic Urban and Mr Stannus believe it is of great significance that they don’t agree with the jury. Urban on another thread posted with obvious pride a piece (it is probably in his book too but I certainly won’t be wasting my money finding out) in which he posed certain hypotheses consistent with innocence which he thinks have not been excluded and concludes that the jury’s verdict was therefore wrong.

    It is supremely irrelevant that Urban, who has declined to tell us how much of the trial evidence he has actually seen, even second-hand, thinks there are hypotheses which have not been excluded as reasonably possible to his mind.”

    And this bit

    “That being so, and having failed to instill any humility in the self-appointed experts, or any recognition that their opinions are not based on a true and full picture and lack validity”

    See Burt’s extended Comment here

    https://tasmaniantimes.com/2018/08/murder-by-the-prosecution-book-launch/

    CONCLUSION: It is my learned opinion that if Mr Andrew Urban wishes to find the truth about this case then he ought to start with the full understanding and the correct interpretation and representation of the trial proceedings and the case evidence, including the evidence submitted at Sue’s recent right-to-appeal hearing, and the results of examination and then cross-examination of all the witnesses.

    Ps: I don’t think that Andrew was aware that it was Peter Lozo posting to his blog this morning – I intentionally left my surname out. Otherwise, from my experience over the past 2 – 3 months, he wouldn’t have uploaded my comments. There is a typo in my post on Andrew’s blog: I missed the word ‘what’, but it is included at the top of this Comment in the bold title.

  33. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 13, 2019 at 10:05 am

    My debate with Andrew Urban about what Mr Ellis said about the blood in the dinghy

    Peter :

    Can you please point out to the page in the trial transcript wheher you think that the DPP said that Mr Chappell’s blood was in the dinghy.

    I ask because I couldn’t find it anywhere in the transcript.

    andrew :

    The page numbers are included in the excerpts in the post.

    Peter:

    Andrew, again, where in the trial transcript did the DPP state that there was blood in the dinghy?

    Peter :

    This is the closest I found (page 71 trial transcript) but even that doesn’t show what you are saying:

    “But the tender itself was also subjected to a screening test for blood called luminol, and what happens with luminol is you put it – you put it on objects where there might have been blood and turn off the lights and it gets lum – it goes luminous in the presence of blood, and
    so that reacted quite strongly, the tender and the inside of the tender
    for the presence of blood, and swabs taken from the tender were found to match, with a high degree of probability, Mr Chappell’s DNA. But on the other hand another screening agent for blood taken
    on that tender showed negative and one of the forensic scientists looked under the microscope to try and find some – what they look for is red/brown indications of blood and couldn’t find any, so some
    indications of blood, his DNA, but others – others, no.”

    I do not interpret any of the above sentences in a manner that would suggest that the DPP stated that there was blood on the dinghy. It is reasonably valid for the DPP to state what he had stated.

    My understanding is confirmed by what Dr Mark Reynolds said under cross-examination:

    “However, under cross examination from Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates SC, Dr Reynolds conceded no witness at the trial had said there were tests confirming blood in the dinghy. “No, no one said it,” Dr Reynolds agreed.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/no-blood-in-murder-victim-bob-chappells-dinghy-susan-neillfraser-hearing-told/news-story/70081e3b183dd64158d77171a9cee4c4

    andrew:

    Like so many of those trying to protect this wrongful conviction, you are being purposefully naive (if I give you the benefit of the doubt…). What do you imagine the jury would have made of the prosecutor saying in the excerpts I publish? Please don’t insult our intelligence.

    Peter :

    “MR ELLIS SC: The next point is, it was attributed to me that I said it was Mr Chappell’s blood in the dinghy. Now I don’t believe I did.

    MR GUNSON SC: Yes, you did.”

    But where in the trial did Mr Ellis say what Mr Gunson claims?

    It is obvious to me that Mr Gunson misinterpreted what Mr Ellis said.

    If you can find in the trial transcript the very location where Mr Ellis said what Mr Gunson claims was said by Mr Ellis then please point it out to your readers.

    andrew

    Flogging … dead horse … wasting … time

    See Andrew Urban’s ‘Wrongful Convictions Report’

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/13/sue-neill-fraser-and-the-self-contradicting-dpp/#comment-3714

  34. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 12, 2019 at 12:50 pm

    Andrew Urban’s website under siege from logic, reason and forensic science

    I noticed a very sudden drop in people posting on Andrew Urban’s blog as of this morning. Why is that? Did they discover this morning that Meaghan Vass had again changed her version as recently as last week when she was re-interviewed by the Tasmanian police? Andrew Urban is now enlisting Dr Bob Moles to help him get out of the ‘journalistic mess’ that he created by allowing so much junk to be posted on ‘Wrongful Convictions Report’ website https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/author/andrew/

    See Dr Moles’ contributions here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/12/police-respond-to-meaghan-vass-admission-on-60-minutes/

    and here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/12/sue-neill-fraser-in-steps-of-lindy-chamberlain/

    But someone fired back very quickly at Dr Moles’ opinion with this reply:

    The two times Meaghan Vass was under oath in the Supreme Court (2010 & 2017) she stated that she wasn’t on the yacht.

    Is there any reason to believe, on the basis of recent events (her story to 60 Minutes, followed up by the police interviewing Meaghan last week) that Meaghan Vass wouldn’t again state under oath in the Supreme Court that she wasn’t on the yacht? I don’t think so. Dr Moles is basing his argument on the basis of what Meaghan Vass stated outside the Supreme Court.”

    See here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/12/police-respond-to-meaghan-vass-admission-on-60-minutes/

    I received this from Henry K (a retired forensic scientist) who informed me that he submitted it to Andrew Urbans’ blog this morning on the same blog where I posted in April 2015 (hasn’t yet been uploaded by Andrew Urban onto his blog; probably won’t be):

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2014/08/24/sue-neill-fraser-new-dna-report-contradicts-conviction/#comment-3638

    An open mind will put Meaghan Vass DNA sample within the context of the whole case. Forensic scientists in general, when providing expert opinion in a trial, do not know the rest of the case. Forensic scientists cannot on the basis of the DNA quality, its strength and volume, decide with any significant confidence whether the deposit was more likely to be primary or secondary. Previously on your blog, I said that a primary deposit subjected to weather may be more degraded and thus be of lower quality than the secondary transfer that was exposed to less weathering. Forensic scientists cannot tell from the DNA whether it was exposed for three days or just one day.

    But I am reasonably familiar with the rest of the evidence in this case. It is on the basis of the broad context of what was submitted to the jury that I am confident that Meaghan’s DNA on the deck of Four Winds is highly likely to have been as a result of secondary transfer. I suspect that your response above to Dr Lozo (a non-forensic scientist), almost 4 years after his post, was inspired by Meaghan’s recent statement on 60 Minutes rather than being based on an objective analysis of the trial evidence. “

    Ps: Mr Urban’s website is remarkably quiet today considering the recent surge in public commentary since the publication of Colin McLaren’s book, followed by the Current Affair Program, the 6 Episodes of Undercurrent, and finally the 60 Minutes program with Meaghan Vass.

    • Bob

      March 12, 2019 at 9:45 pm

      Peter you have put in an incredible amount of work for one person. As a scientist would you not like for this to go to a retrial; have your hard work presented along with all other case evidence? Surely this would have to be the pinnacle for a scientist such as yourself.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 13, 2019 at 7:11 am

        Bob, It is up to the Court to decide whether the case should go for re-trial. I have provided both sides of the case with my hypothesis that the evidence strongly suggests that Mr Chappell’s body was winched out through the saloon skylite hatch with the aid of a winch on the main mast. In other words, it is my evidence based opinion that both the TasPol detectives and the two Victorian ex-detectives were incorrect in their hypothesis of how Mr Chappell’s body was extracted from the saloon of the yacht. That is the highlight of my 4 years of work on this case and it all came together several weeks ago after I read Colin McLaren’s book and also saw Episode 3 of Undercurrent.

        • William Boeder

          March 13, 2019 at 5:11 pm

          Dr Peter Lozo, The passage of time will be the judge of your heavily biased forensic work on the SN-F case, formed by you on the basis of Ms. SN-F being ruled as guilty, yet on circumstantial only evidence.

          You may be proud of the opinions you have derived from your speculative theories, yet all would collapse if Ms Meaghan Vass was accorded the credibility of her plausible evidence (yet since become heavily criticised and unreasonably supressed evidence) to be realized as its bonafide fact.

          I have already touched on the strong bias held against Ms. SN-F during the court trial proceedings, in comments I have directed to yourself, but nothing other than silence or a derisory comment by you in response, concerning the overriding bias shared between yourself and those officiating persons during the trial conduct of this particular case.

          Why had the easily discerned bias been wholly ignored by you during the whole of the period of the time spent by you during your forensic endeavours?

          Now back to the substance of the Vass evidence, I refer to the troubled and frequently threatened Ms. Meaghan Vass, she has been determined a person bereft of credibility….despite her having had to suffer the burden of threats and violence….in her having witnessed a wholly different set of events?…. now quite obvious is the relevance from the first occasion when her DNA had been discovered on the Four Winds Yacht.
          (Notwithstanding that this revelation had you veer off course and create your secondary transfer bubble-gum theory.)

          One cannot overlook that Ms. Meaghan Vass has since provided a very credible explanation of the events that had occurred on 26th January 2009 as opposed to the circumstantial evidence proffered and relied upon by the DPP, and then referred to by the presiding Justice of the court to be employed ‘in his final instructions given to the Jury.’

          There is the old cliche that is particularly relevant to this case; ‘of placing the cart in front of the horse’ to thereby arrive at the guilty decision handed down against Ms SN-F, rather than the further required scoping out to consider any other alternative cause….other than the presented circumstantial evidence.

          I note that you have decried the fact, same with the relevant police and judicial authorities, that Ms. Meaghan Vass may very well and be just ‘one’ of the eye witnesses to the actual events on that stated evening, that brought about the decease of the late Mr Bob Chappell.

          All the while the authorities referred to in the above, have declined to accord any substance to prove or disprove the substance of the Vass eye-witnessed account of the events leading to the death of Mr. Bob Chappell.
          I note you have again changed your forensic evidence summary, now you atttempt to credit your skylite hatch theory since a reference to a different winch was exposed to you by the work of others, yet you now overlook your prior expressed theory, that Ms. SN-F was well able to raise and remove the body of the deceased from a below deck by an alternative winch powered under her own steam?

          Your now claim to fame held in your expressed summary dated March 13th 2019 at 7-11 AM, does not offer any of your prior established scientific-forensic-substantated-facts that you had previously claimed as to be a logical conclusion…during the 4 years of your pre-claimed forensic achievements.

          In effect the information you now rely upon to prove your forensic skills relies upon the evidence referred by you in your 13th March summary, happened to be so recently achieved from others, yet you now incorporate to be your own scientific forensic prowess.

          Also of concern is your claim; to providing both sides of this case……by your hypothisis???
          My last comment to you in this matter is, that there has not been any alteration to the improper status quo of this case, yet still relied upon by the State officials, despite any whatsoever iconoclastic forensic discovery.
          Do please be beware lest your swelling ego does cause you a serious professional mischief.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 13, 2019 at 6:28 pm

            From Dr Peter Lozo to his favourite bully on TT, and to those whose Tunnel Vision and Confirmation Bias has led them to chase a red-herring:

            Watch “The Power Of One Soundtrack – 07.Southland Concerto” on YouTube

            https://youtu.be/O86lYE_brQQ

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 13, 2019 at 8:36 pm

        Bob,

        If you were the one who wrote:

        “The old joke is about how a biased person can make black look like white. In this case the investigator actually said that a white boat might look like grey on the water – without any evidential basis for such a remarkable claim.”

        then you might now recognise the reason why, way back in early 2015, I felt that this song best represents what I thought about the above statement:

        Watch “Bee Gees – I Started A Joke (Live in Las Vegas, 1997 – One Night Only)” on YouTube
        https://youtu.be/b3kBDtjRtB0

        • Bob

          March 15, 2019 at 12:09 am

          No, not me Peter, but i do wonder to the relevance?

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 15, 2019 at 7:44 am

            “The old joke is about how a biased person can make black look like white. In this case the investigator actually said that a white boat might look like grey on the water – without any evidential basis for such a remarkable claim.”

            It is a remarkable claim but it is a valid claim, and there is evidence in the trial transcript that the white dinghy was described by some to be grey.

            So, the joke is on the person who wrote the above in their review of Eve Ash’s “Shadow of Doubt’ documentary.

      • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

        March 15, 2019 at 9:18 am

        Bob, why is it that you posted on this thread replies only to me and in particular under my two Comments where I mentioned Dr Bob Moles’ name? I find that odd because there are two such instances in the past 4-5 days.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        April 22, 2019 at 2:29 am

        Bob, I hope that you have by now realised that you asked me a wrong question.

        A scientist searches for truth in whatever they are researching. As far as this case is concerned, I am after the truth as to what happened to Bob Chappell and where his remains are. I am well trained and experienced in searching for truth. I don’t need lawyers or judges or juries to tell me what the truth is. I feel very sorry for one scientist in this country whose excellent work was misunderstood by appeal court judges who had no clue what they were talking about when they criticized that scientist’s work even though the work was refereed and published in highly regarded international journals. Then came along a hot shot barrister who used the Appeal Court decision to throw further insults at that scientist and his work. I consider that particular work as a flawless piece of scientific work that provided a scientific insight into what most likely occurred. I am talking about the excellent work of the former Associate Professor of Physics, Rodney Cross. It is the police and the prosecutor who stuffed up in that case, as well as the Appeal Court judges. The latter stuffed up with respect to R. Cross’ expert scientific evidence.

        There are a number of truths in the SN-F case. I will mention only one here.

        The truth in the SN-F case is that both TasPol detectives and the two Victorian ex-detectives ignored the physical evidence that strongly suggested a hypothesis that Bob’s body was winched out from the saloon via the skylite hatch with the aid of a winch on the main mast.

        You might wonder why a highly experienced and highly regarded homicide ex-detective from Victoria who reviewed Colin McLaren’s work also ignored the exactly same physical evidence as Colin and TasPol detectives did. This must be the most bizarre coincidence in failing to notice a significant piece of physical evidence in a real crime scene of which I am aware.

  35. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 12, 2019 at 8:29 am

    Police re-interviewed Meaghan Vass last week

    “Tasmania Police said it was aware of the contents of the 60 Minutes story. 

    Assistant Commissioner Richard Cowling said police re-interviewed Ms Vass last week when the program’s promotional material suggested a new version of events.

    “The version of events given by Ms Vass on 60 Minutes is contrary to her previous police interview, contrary to her sworn evidence in court and contrary to last week’s police interview,” Commander Cowling said.

    “We continue to have full confidence in both the original and current police investigators and reiterate that Sue Neill-Fraser stood trial and was convicted by a jury.” 

    https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/5948663/high-profile-murder-case-interview-restricted-because-of-neill-fraser-appeal/

    • Lola Moth

      March 12, 2019 at 9:50 am

      Peter, I think when MV had her interview with 60 Minutes she would have felt safe and supported. She was in neutral territory and felt secure enough to say the things she did.

      For MV, the police are not a group of saviours out to help her. Both the police and the ex-boyfriend will be very unhappy with Meaghan’s interview with 60 Minutes. The police are as dangerous to her as the ex-boyfriend she accuses of causing the death of BC. I am sure they can get her to recant again but it only proves how scared she is of them. She sees them as having great power over her life and what happens to her. She has no ‘safe place’ anymore. I have never felt more sorry for someone who has had to deal with our legal system.

      I hope the 60 Minutes crew can whisk her away to safety. She put her life on the line to speak to them and the least they can do is to give her some measure of protection.

      • Kate

        March 12, 2019 at 10:32 am

        Channel Nine Syndrome (CNS) is a psychological condition in the western world. People suffering this condition are generally sceptical of legal systems, the police, science and rational argument but are highly prone to swallowing a “story” from a journalist.

        • William Boeder

          March 12, 2019 at 12:10 pm

          Now Kate, you seem an intelligent woman, why do you think the State’s populace would recoil from the State’s practiced legal and law system, please be sincere in your response, no trolling if you please?

        • Kate

          March 12, 2019 at 1:11 pm

          The Media Syndrome (2016)

          By David Altheide (sociologist)

          https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315532967

          • Lola Moth

            March 12, 2019 at 7:15 pm

            Kate, both Dr Lozo and yourself seem to have misinterpreted my comment in the same way, but that could be because you are of the same mind…

          • William Boeder

            March 13, 2019 at 9:41 pm

            Dear Kate, any point in my asking you when next ‘we’ pay a visit to the American style shrink?

        • Lola Moth

          March 12, 2019 at 1:38 pm

          Kate, I don’t have television so I don’t know how I could have contracted CNS. I have, however, had extensive contact with legal systems, the police, and journalists, and my scepticism of them all is a direct result of that contact.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 12, 2019 at 4:20 pm

            “I have, however, had extensive contact with legal systems, the police, and journalists, and my scepticism of them all is a direct result of that contact.”

            If you are sceptical of the legal system and the police then how can you be objective in your analysis and conclusions on this case?

            How can you be objective in your critique of my own opinions expressed here on TT given that virtually everything I had written agrees with the Crown case against Sue?

            It is hard work to stay objective, particularly when you have had an experience that led you to be sceptical about the legal system and the police.

            Scientists are trained very early in their career to stay objective. No wonder I come across at times as a tough narcissistic SOB who doesn’t pay much attention to emotions when dealing with problems that require evidence based reasoning of high quality.

          • Geraldine Allan

            March 12, 2019 at 9:01 pm

            Lola, there is strong support for your contributions. Numerous persons are refraining from entering the debate here for obvious reasons. You seem an intelligent person, both mentally & emotionally. I’m sorry you’ve become disillusioned, as your contributions have been worthy.
            Thanks for your respect and tolerance to date. We all wear down eventually and divert our mental and comment energy to more suitable forums, where reasonable rationale is well-presented and differing views are respected.
            Wrongful Convictions is relevant. Recent inactivity in posts is due to soooo many forums, and private communications as I now know you are alerted to. I wish there were 4 of me, grin. I could keep up with all intelligent forum discussions.

          • Geraldine Allan

            March 12, 2019 at 9:16 pm

            Lola, I am reminded of “It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So”. Stay true to yourself, and well-done.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 12, 2019 at 12:00 pm

        Lola,

        Is this ‘earth is flat’ argument?

        My opinion is that you are now crossing into the world of speculation and fiction.

        I live in the realm of physical reality and rely on physical evidence and on evidence based reasoning.

        evidence-based reasoningis the process of thinking about something in a logical way and supporting your thinking with proof to show that your thoughts are, indeed, logical.”

        Please study about ‘evidence based reasoning’.

        Best wishes,
        Peter

        • Lola Moth

          March 12, 2019 at 12:55 pm

          Peter, I don’t understand your meaning. My comment did not mention any evidence in the SN-F case. I gave my personal view on the danger MV has put herself in by speaking to 60 Minutes, that is all. That you can take my comment as being without ‘evidence based reasoning’ when it is clearly a comment about how MV may feel rather than anything she said or did, astounds me. Are you really so adversarial that anything anybody says that does not align with your thinking must be wrong?

          You accuse me of ‘crossing into the world of speculation and fiction’ but I have only ventured into psychology. I have not disregarded any evidence in my comment because I didn’t address any. Some on this forum have called your own very in-depth work on this case a total fantasy but I have always respected your work.

          I am most disappointed with your remarks. I thought you were better than that.

      • Geraldine Allan

        March 12, 2019 at 8:53 pm

        Lola, one only has to read Tas Pol’s Principal Legal Officer’s September 2017 letter to Meaghan Vass’s solicitors, to gain an understanding of the threatening intimidation she was under and clearly felt, to withdraw. Her reinstated/resurrected courage in more recent times, is admirable. Bravo Meaghan V.

    • William Boeder

      March 12, 2019 at 11:55 am

      So having the revelation of Ms. Meaghan Vass having been delivered, one could hardly expect the State’s law and order authorities to roll over with their hands in the air muttering cuff me for I am guilty, which in holding that view would be the thinking of an imbecile.
      If the State’s Authorities feel they have covered their backsides well enough they will stick to their line and damn anybody that dares to suggest otherwise.

      That this SN-F conviction remains the same in the eyes of Tasmania’s sometimes credible law and order authorities, this just has to be expected.

      Now as to the veraclty of this State’s (known as the Crown of Tasmania) Supreme Court Trial conviction method, or its procedural tecnique having achieved its purpose, to have that body of persons capitulate from that which they had achieved by their design, ain’t going to happen.

      We now turn to the incident of Mr Robert Richter visiting this State with his brief of evidence, then his claiming the unsafe conviction of Ms. SN-F, well, the only position open to the State…. is to ignore or refute the content of the Richter file…..Once again the case conviction is no longer threatened.

      For the Crown to admit or permit otherwise, is not considered the wisest position to take, as to have the whole caboodle of prosecutors, judges, investigating officers et al likely found to be imprudent, or that there existed serious flaws in Tasmania’s carriage and delivery of the law, well that ain’t going to happen either.

      Furthermore, don’t be surprised that if the Crown’s conviction is threatened or is claimed as invalid then by virtue of the Crown may be their calling for an Expert Witness, if only to satisfy the unsettled public and or to further support the Crown’s position.

      That Expert Witness could be in the shape of eg; (a Forensic Scientist perhaps Dr Peter Lozo?) or perhaps another of his ilk that will be especially supportive toward the Crown’s position.

      There is a huge amount of ‘face’ that will be threatened if a second case or an appeal is allowed to commence, that may favour Ms. SN-F, well that will not be left unhindered by the State (or Crown) as they will not spare any cost to save the face of Tasmania’s System of Justice, no matter how dissolutely this can be achieved, the end goal is to uphold the face of the Crown.
      Never mind how the conviction of Ms. SN-F had been so circumstantially achieved by the Crown, the Crown incumbents will be hot to trot in protecting their reputable skin.
      Oh, and bugger the people snorting about justice.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 13, 2019 at 10:09 pm

        “That Expert Witness could be in the shape of eg; (a Forensic Scientist perhaps Dr Peter Lozo?) or perhaps another of his ilk that will be especially supportive toward the Crown’s position.”

        If this case goes beyond the right-to-appeal then experts on either side of the case can test out my closed-loop winch-boom hypothesis that is based on the lower winch on the main mast, the main boom and the saloon skylite hatch. I am not a Forensic Scientist!

        What is Physics? on YouTube: https://youtu.be/yWMKYID5fr8

        What is a Physicist? on YouTube: https://youtu.be/lxHDerWr5oE

        What is APPLIED PHYSICS? on YouTube:
        https://youtu.be/pa9_6eyiTqs

        What is Computational Neuroscience? on YouTube:
        https://youtu.be/d5oqIxhTU8I

        Dr Lozo is an Applied Physicist and a Computational Neuroscientist.

    • William Boeder

      March 16, 2019 at 12:40 pm

      Dr. Peter Lozo, despite the claims held in the 60 minutes interview featuring Ms. Meaghan Vass, I now revert to your your claims of me being a TT Bully, are unfounded, more accurately I should be referred to as the person notifying you to account for your peddling of unsubstantiated facts during which you were adding your further speculative commentary (up until recently) throughout your time engaged in the matter of who had been responsible for the Bob Chappell presumed murder.

      Interesting it is to view how your recent narrative had only recently, suddenly altered with you now claiming that other notable persons had been the parties responsible for you departing from your long-term held claims recommending the Supreme court findings of SN-F as guilty beyond any other consideration.

      Any attempts to refute my narrative in this comment is best considered a waste of time by you as I possess a remarkable memory for fact information, more especialy when that information has been expressed by persons engaged in speculative opportunity.

      From the beginnings of your SN-F case analysis, “yep, it could only be Sue Neill-Fraser” (that had committed the murder of Bob Chappell) you had then set out to convince all the attendees of this Tasmanian Times forum how you had brilliantly (yet suggestively) reconstructed each facet of this case.

      Your further participation in this increasingly controversial case matter, may well impair your future professional endevours. More so when you vehemently deny the established credibility of notable professional others.

      Vehemently, Sentence Examplesl;
      Still, it wasn’t the first time they had vehemently disagreed on something.
      While he now had the ability to chase his past, he refused vehemently to do so.

  36. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 11, 2019 at 11:04 am

    Regarding my 2015 opinion on Meaghan’s DNA on Four Winds

    During the very first week of my research into the Susan Neill-Fraser case way back in 2015, I posted a DNA based comment on April 2, 2015 on Andrew Urban’s Wrongful Convictions Report website

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2014/08/24/sue-neill-fraser-new-dna-report-contradicts-conviction/#comment-3572

    The Editor of that website (Andrew Urban) replied this morning to my 2015 post! The somewhat cheeky reply is

    “Well now it looks like it was primary, huh?”

    It may look like it was primary to the Ed of the Wrongful Convictions Report website but it most certainly DOESN’T look like it was primary to me.

    I guess that Andrew Urban is superbly confident that Meaghan Vass was telling the facts on 60 Minutes and that therefore her DNA on Four Winds must be primary. I replied to Andrew but am not sure whether he will upload my reply. I waited for couple of hours and was monitoring his website to see whether my reply had been uploaded. But there is nothing yet at this time as I am submitting this to TT.

    Below is a copy of my reply to Andrew Urban (submitted to https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2014/08/24/sue-neill-fraser-new-dna-report-contradicts-conviction/#comment-3572)

    “Hi Andrew,

    I am not changing my opinion on the basis of what Meaghan Vass stated during her interview on 60 Minutes last night. I saw the interview and have submitted a couple of comments on TT (they are still waiting to be uploaded by the Moderator on
    https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/01/does-perverted-justice-prevail-in-australias-deep-south/#comment-228385)

    Part of my comment was:

    “Given that Meaghan stated in the Supreme Court in late 2017 that she was under threat of violence and hence why she signed a false statement in April 2017, who is to say that she wasn’t again pressured recently under the threat of violence to change her statement and to make it a public statement?”

    Anyway, I suggest that you re-read what the Victorian forensic scientist (Maxwell Jones) said during his cross-examination. Here is just one relevant portion:

    Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer?

    Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.”

    See here
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

    I also wrote that it is extremely seductive (for non-scientists) to believe that the only way Meaghan’s DNA could have gotten onto Four Winds is via her physical presence.

    But of course, I am a scientist and am well aware how easy it is for secondary transfer to have occurred.

    Best regards,
    Peter”

    So much for Andrew Urban’s open mindedness on this case and the obvious bias on his Wrongful Convictions Report website – a website populated mostly via non-evidence based reasoning and heaps of junk. Even Karen Keefe made a comment claiming that Andy Brown got paid to help get Meaghan off to Melbourne! A few people did get through with some useful comments. Here is an insight into forensic DNA science by a retired forensic scientist (Henry K) – my emphasis is in bold:

    “There doesn’t necessarily need to be a difference in the quality between the primary and the secondary.

    A primary deposit that is 3 days old and is exposed to weather can be of lower quality than a secondary transfer that is 1 day old and is exposed to the same weather.

    A forensic scientist cannot tell by looking at DNA whether it is primary or secondary transfer.

    Why should there be a mixture?”

    See here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/09/meaghan-vass-inconvenient-eyewitness-to-murder/

    On that note, I am ending this Comment.

    • Kate

      March 11, 2019 at 12:11 pm

      Thanks for the tip on the 60 minutes “show” Geraldine Allan. If Fraser is granted a retrial and Vass takes the stand, the cleaners will be able to take the next day off, because the prosecution will mop the floor with her!

      A royal commission is definitely required….into journalism in Australia!

  37. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 11, 2019 at 7:46 am

    Under threat of violence?

    “She later recanted in court, saying she signed the statement under threat of violence and said that she was not present on the night of Chappell’s murder.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drifters-partner-killed-yachtie/news-story/0b351ed10f070853a1cc91a4253c46d3

    Given that Meaghan, under an oath, stated in the Supreme Court in late 2017 that she was under threat of violence and hence why she signed a false statement in April 2017, who is to say that she wasn’t again pressured recently under the threat of violence to change her statement and to make it a public statement?

    But there are people, gullible people may I suggest, who will disregard the whole evidence against Sue, even the evidence that she physically altered the crime scene on the deck of Four Winds, just because it is extremely seductive for (non-scientists) to believe that the only way Meaghan’s DNA could have gotten onto the walkway of Four Winds (right next to the starboard boarding gate) is via her physical presence on the walkway of the yacht.

  38. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 11, 2019 at 5:58 am

    Sense versus Nonsense

    It is said below as follows:

    “Meaghan Vass {9News: 60 Minutes 10/3/2109) has surely said sufficient for Susan Neill-Fraser to be immediately released from jail. Over 10 years, and now we are getting somewhere. There has to be an immediate release. There has to be a Royal Commission. Surely we must see a review of the actions of the two DPPs who oversaw this disgraceful episode in the Tasmanian Judicial system.”

    That is certainly one way of looking at it. But is that a sensible view that is based on evidence based reasoning given that Meaghan has demonstrated to be highly susceptible to suggestion and had changed her story more than once. It is my opinion that is it a nonsense to suggest that there is anything in the 60 Minutes program that could be used in a Court of Law to argue for the immediate released of Susan Neill-Fraser from jail.

    I think that Mr Robert Richter QC, who also featured on the 60 Minutes program, ought to take a good look at the live footage of Four Winds that featured on the program, but this time focus his attention to the front mast of the yacht. There is a large winch handle that sticks out light a sore thumb. I think I ought to send him an email about the altered crime scene on the deck of Four Winds that possibly mislead Colin McLaren.

    What in my view is a sensible summary of the 60 Minutes interview of Meaghan Vass? Here is an excellent example posted last night on Twitter by a young journalist (Emily Barton):

    “#60Minutes tonight is a beat up. This supposed ‘witness’ (#MeaghanVass ) is very questionable. ‘I can’t really remember’, ‘I guess I did’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘I suppose I would have’ – how does anyone see any credibility in those answers!?”

    see

    https://mobile.twitter.com/emilybarton1211/status/1104682009392119808

    I perfectly agree with Emily’s opinion.

  39. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    March 10, 2019 at 10:22 pm

    Meaghan Vass {9News: 60 Minutes 10/3/2109) has surely said sufficient for Susan Neill-Fraser to be immediately released from jail. Over 10 years, and now we are getting somewhere. There has to be an immediate release. There has to be a Royal Commission. Surely we must see a review of the actions of the two DPPs who oversaw this disgraceful episode in the Tasmanian Judicial system.

    It’s more than time that we change our trial system to what Evan Whitton advocated for: a change from adversarial to inquisitorial. But we must examine also the behaviour of the police and legal officers. But this examination should also extend to the Premier, to his Attorney-General and to his Solicitor-General. They had their opportunity to right the wrong, and chose not to.

    This has been a classic case of ‘arrest the messengers’, and still we wait for Justice Brett to start the tired old ball rolling again. She should be out. Does she – do we – have to go through the same parody of justice at a second appeal, before she can be released?

    Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia, asks “Does Perverted Justice Prevail in Australia’s Deep South? Any reasonable person, apprised of all that we now know, would surely consider answering “Yes!”

  40. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 10, 2019 at 5:10 pm

    Sue Neill-Fraser altered the crime scene on the deck of Four Winds

    There is no doubt that someone alerted the crime scene on the deck of Four Winds next to the main mast and on the main mast sometime after Sue Neill-Fraser was allowed to board the yacht with detectives at the Constitution Dock.

    There are several crime scene photographs now available in the public domain of the deck area around the main mast and of the state of a winch and ropes on the main mast. Some photos show a large red winch handle in a winch on the main mast and rope wound around that winch and going to the starboard skylite hatch. Other photos show the red winch handle on the deck next to the main mast and the rope removed from the winch.

    The information available on pages 841 – 842 of the Trial Transcript indicates that although Susan Neill-Fraser was instructed not to touch anything when she boarded the yacht with a detective she grabbed the winch handle and took it out of the winch. She then took the rope off the winch. Why did she want to alter the crime scene?

    This is the extract from pages 841 – 842 of the Trial Transcript (Detective Sergeant Simon Matthew is on the witness stand and is asked a series of questions by the Director of Public Prosecutions that are related to Sue Neill-Fraser’s actions when she boarded the yacht with detectives). My emphasis is in bold:

    ——– from pages 841 – 842 Trial Transcript ——

    “Right. Did you explain to them what you – what the point was or what you wanted them to do?……Prior to getting onto the vessel, yes, I pointed out that there were things I wished – I just wished them to have a look across it basically and point out anything that they saw that might have been unusual.

    Yes…….And then we entered onto the vessel. They were requested not to touch anything if they could avoid it.

    Right, was that made clearly to Ms Neill-Fraser -…….Yes, it was.

    and the others?……Yes.

    And having got on board could you describe what happened, please?……Upon getting onto the rear of the vessel, the rear cabin area, the accused pointed out on the right hand side or the starboard side a green rope that was – she stated it was in disarray and out of place.

    Mhm……..She then moved down the starboard side of the vessel towards the forward mast.She pointed out at that point that there was a winch handle in a winch that shouldn’t have been there –

    Right…….- and removed that from the winch.
    Did she actually put her hand on it and remove it?……Put her hand on it and pulled it out of the winch.

    All right. Did you remind her at that point of anything?……I said,

    “Please don’t touch anything”, and asked her to put it on the deck, put it down.

    Right…..She then – wrapped around that winch was a rope or I refer to it as a sheet in the sailing term, white with red fleck through it.

    Yes…….She unwound that at the same time, again I just said, “Put it down on the deck, please”, and then she pointed out that the end of it was cut, as was another rope which was in a pile on the deck of the vessel as well. She pointed that that was cut as well.

    Okay. Now it might sound like these things were done in rapid succession, would that be fair?……They were done in fairly – yes, fairly direct point to point to point. “

    See the relevant photographs on my FB post

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=958649941005072&id=100005802249120

    The Trial Transcript can be downloaded from this TT link

    https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/09/the-sue-neill-fraser-trial-transcript/

    CONCLUSION: Susan Neill-Fraser alerted the crime scene on the deck next to the main mast by removing the large red winch handle and the rope from a winch on the main mast even though she was instructed not to touch anything.

    • Lola Moth

      March 10, 2019 at 7:40 pm

      Peter, I will try to tell you what I see from the above transcript snippets. It is a different point of view to yours but using the same information.

      Sue was taken to the yacht to see if anything was different or out of place. She was the only person who could provide that information. She was told not to touch anything. She gave information about things on the yacht that were out of place or different from when she was last there. Nobody could possibly back up her findings or oppose them because the only other person who would know was missing. She could have said all was as she had last seen it but she went out of her way to point out things that were wrong.

      On her way around the yacht (her own yacht) she touched things that she shouldn’t have. Touching her own belongings was a natural thing to do. She was reminded not to touch anything and she didn’t make that mistake again. By touching things she altered the crime scene but photos had already been taken so there was not too much damage done.

      Crime scenes and forensics was new to Sue so I feel I should cut her some slack on touching things. She was probably in shock and very confused as well.

      Let us now go along with your theory as to the transfer of DNA onto the yacht via a detective’s shoe. How was an experienced detective able to unwittingly transfer DNA to the yacht? I can’t believe a detective could be so sloppy as to contaminate such a small crime scene. How is it that SN-F, who had no experience in crime scene preservation, has ‘deliberately’ altered a crime scene, yet an experienced detective is allowed to thoroughly compromise a crime scene with foreign DNA but it is let go as a mistake?

      There are too many problems with this case. A new trial is needed.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 10, 2019 at 10:07 pm

        What makes you think it was a detective?

        Why don’t you watch various news footage of 27th and see how many people are on board during different parts of the morning: there were cops, there were salvage people, there were forensic people. As far as I know, the morning of 27th Jan is the only time when a lot of people boarded Four Winds via the starboard gate. The yacht was berthed via its portside at the Constitution Dock. Am not sure at Goodwood.

        Sue Neill-Fraser did not only touch when she was instructed not to touch! She took the winch handle out of the winch! She took the rope off the winch! She thus altered the crime scene before the detectives had time to process the crime scene thoroughly. Is there any wonder why TasPol and the Victorian ex-detectives overlooked that particular winch.

        Your interpretation is narrow minded. Have you had experience in writing critiques on various topics and then been provided feedback?

        • Lola Moth

          March 11, 2019 at 7:43 am

          Peter, I am only going on the hypothesis you have provided over the months that you have been sharing your work here on TT. I apologise if I used the word ‘detective’ when you may have in the past used the word ‘officer’ ,and if by doing so I have misconstrued your meaning. It still does not alter the fact that SN-F is being held to account for deliberately altering the crime scene while others who have contaminated the scene are allowed their mistake to just be unfortunate.

          I do not have any experience in writing critiques on various topics and then being provided feedback. None at all. Zip. Nada. I do, however, have plenty of experience giving testimony in the witness box and being challenged by very hostile legal professionals on it then and there, without being able to mull over my answer or to edit it before finally submitting it. I like to think I held up rather well.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 11, 2019 at 10:02 am

            Lola, You definitely belong on TT because you use logical arguments! It has been my pleasure to read your work.

            If you like to interact with me on this case after TT closes down then please feel free to contact me via Facebook messenger and then we can move to communication via email.

            I am busy with pushing forward with my work and am preparing material, including illustrations, for a book on forensic science. Don’t have spare time at the moment to engage in a further discussion.

            Best wishes,
            Peter

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 10, 2019 at 10:15 pm

        Lola,

        Good effort. Try again but first compare what I wrote with what you wrote to see what you need to improve on.

  41. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 10, 2019 at 12:38 pm

    Possible financial seduction

    It was stated on Andrew Urban’s blog

    “Before you ask: 60 Minutes producers have confirmed they did not pay Vass a fee for the interview.”

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/09/meaghan-vass-inconvenient-eyewitness-to-murder/

    But Andrew hasn’t addressed the possibility of Meaghan been offered or promised an offer of a monetary reward by other sources. One such possible source is the $40K that has been available via the Susan Neill-Fraser Support Group.

    When one looks at how things evolved since Karen Keefe came into the picture, one can’t ignore several publicly reported instances of possible financial seduction.

    “Police allege the 41-year-old agreed to accept property and money totalling almost $100,000 in return for providing false evidence and convincing another to do the same in Neill-Fraser’s appeal.

    Police said she agreed to receive $3,000 cash, a $40,000 reward for information in the murder, and a $50,000 education fund for her and two children.

    In return Keefe would allegedly have given false evidence about Neill-Fraser and a girl whose DNA was found at the scene, knowing it would result in that girl giving false evidence in the appeal.”

    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/sue-neill-fraser-case-karen-patricia-nancy-keefe-charged/8792274

    Also

    “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://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/killer-susan-neillfraser-offered-rewards-for-exit/news-story/48370cc1e543caca6bf472cba5f87a10

    It is also interesting to note what transpired during the cross-examination of Mr Colin McLaren in relation to Meaghan Vass.

    “On Wednesday, Mr McLaren was asked to confirm that in June 2016, he said if Ms Vass would agree that she had been on board “that’s compelling. F****ing compelling. She doesn’t know nothing, but if we get her to say it … that’s massive”.”

    “Mr McLaren confirmed the statements, and agreed that he suggested giving Ms Vass $10,000 to say she was on the yacht.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-06/susan-neill-fraser-appeal-witness-accused-of-fabricating-eviden/10786034

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 10, 2019 at 3:42 pm

      I just like to add that I hardly recognised the beautiful looking young woman in a new outfit – very unlike any other photograph. Her Facebook shows that the photograph was uploaded couple of weeks ago. Check out the new Meaghan. If you can’t find her FB account then check out the photo on Andrew Urban’s blog.

      https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/28/undercurrent-the-end-is-nigh/

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 10, 2019 at 11:17 pm

      A fictitious visit by Meaghan to Four Winds

      This just about summarises my own opinion of the Meaghan Vass interview on 60 Minutes:

      “can’t really remember”

      “I guess I did”

      “I don’t know”

      “I suppose I would have”

      how does anyone see any credibility in those answers!

      https://mobile.twitter.com/emilybarton1211/status/1104682009392119808

      The interview of Meaghan Vass by 60 Minutes is the biggest bowl of bollocks I have seen on 60 Minutes!

      Obviously a fictitious visit by Meaghan to Four Winds!

      • Lola Moth

        March 11, 2019 at 8:12 am

        Peter, all the statements by MV where she says “I can’t really remember” or “I guess I did” or “I suppose I would have”, I also dismiss. When she says “I don’t know” at the end of a statement I dismiss the whole sentence. I think she has little or no recollection of these things so is trying to stitch together what happened with threads that sound logical but that are invisible to her own eyes. She would be much better off stating she has no memory of these things rather than trying to guess, but as you point out, her language gives away what she really means.

        The things she was positive about, without using any of these wobbly phrases, were as follows:

        She was on board the Four Winds with her then boyfriend. She saw the boyfriend hit BC multiple times. She doesn’t know what he was hit with. She saw a lot of blood. She vomited on the deck of the Four Winds. She does not remember how she got back to shore.

        I believe these statements are true and dismiss the others as MV trying to stitch together the rest when she has no actual memory of it.

        Last night I watched an interview where a woman in her mid-20’s turned into a terrified child of 15 the moment she was asked to remember that night. She was not very articulate so she was not coached in what to say because coaching would have made her far more articulate. I am not cherry picking in order to make her interview more believable to my own mind and prejudices. I am trying to be objective.

        You have recently called me narrow-minded because of my views. I have suggested that you too have a narrow view when it comes to this subject. The difference between us is, I think, that I am more than willing to be persuaded by new evidence but that even with a confession by someone other than SN-F you will never concede an inch.

        • Lola Moth

          March 11, 2019 at 11:20 am

          Peter, I would like to add that after reading the comment by ‘garrystannus’ above, I believe the difference in our conclusions when we have read the same evidence and have been given the same information, is that my style of assessing information is inquisitorial whereas your is adversarial. Different outcomes from different ways of interpreting evidence, but when it comes to legal justice they can have devastating consequences.

  42. Geraldine Allan

    March 10, 2019 at 10:45 am

    For fellow Tasmanian’s, I’m reposting an email received earlier FYI: –

    Meghan confesses tonight on 60 Minutes

    Dear friends, for those who are not aware tonight on 60 Minutes at 8.30pm AEDT Meghan Vass finally admits the truth of what really happened to Bob Chappell on the night of Australia Day.

    It has been prevented from airing live in Tasmania so if you are in Tasmania or abroad we wanted to let you know you can watch it live by going to the channel 9 website and clicking on the live tv button or you can follow this link
    https://www.9now.com.au/live/channel-9

    If you have a Smart TV you will need to access the channel 9Now app on your TV and you can watch it from there. You will also be able to watch it on catch up on the 9Now at a later time should you miss it.

    The more of us that watch and engage with this show, the less likely it will be ignored or swept under the carpet. So please watch and share.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 10, 2019 at 5:26 pm

      Some of you are spoiling the quality of work published here on TT. Andrew Urban’s Wrongful Convictions Report is better suited to the non-evidence based opinions and opinions that are misrepresenting the true facts of the case, as well as opinions that appeal to emotions rather than the logical of a reasoning mind.

      https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/author/andrew/

  43. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    March 10, 2019 at 10:45 am

    𝐻𝑜𝑤 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠! 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑇𝑎𝑠 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑜-𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐, 𝑡𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 — 𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑠! — 𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑜𝑡 ‘𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒’ — ‘𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡’ 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠. 𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑤𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑎𝑔𝑠.

    𝑋𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑋𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥, [𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒-𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑’𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 (𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑦 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛) 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝑏𝑢𝑡, 𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑠, 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑢𝑔.] 𝑦𝑜𝑢, 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑦𝑒𝑡, 𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑔𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 … 𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑡?

    𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑛 𝐵𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑠’ 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ:

    𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐲𝐚𝐥 𝐘𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐚𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚 (27Feb2019):
    Launching her book: ‘𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑛𝑡’.[pic of small slice of those in attendance: by Garry Stannus]

    Review: ‘𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑛𝑡’.

    In the introduction to her book, ‘𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑛𝑡’, author Robin Bowles writes:

    “𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙄 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙎𝙪𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙙 𝙤𝙧 𝙙𝙞𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝘽𝙤𝙗 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙡, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙄 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙.”

    – a curious statement yet one that many of us who have followed this case for years can understand.You see, we don’t know what happened to Bob Chappell and while we understand much of what took place before and after his disappearance, we are still searching for final answers as to what took place on the Four Winds during the late afternoon and evening of Australia Day 2009, or indeed, during the early hours of the following morning.

    Robin Bowles’ book 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵t comes on the heels of two others: that of ex-Vic detective Colin McLaren’s 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆 and Andrew Urban’s 𝘔𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Before that we read and viewed Eleri Harris’s: 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘔𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨’, a literally graphic (cartoon-cum-graphic novel) account of the story of Bob Chappell’s disappearance, as told to Harris by Sarah, one of Sue’s two daughters. Harris’s is an ‘insiders’ view, and in her work we hear the voice of Sarah, which was not heard at trial.

    Harris, McLaren and Urban have made important contributions to the body of work concerned with the disappearance of Bob Chappell and the subsequent conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser for his murder.Robin Bowles has also written previously about Neill-Fraser. In her (2016) book 𝘑𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘉𝘪𝘳𝘥𝘴 : 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘋𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦, Bowles wrote about five women doing time: three of them ‘guilty’(i.e. having done what they were convicted of) and two ‘not so guilty’. When I read 𝘑𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘉𝘪𝘳𝘥𝘴, I was not comfortable with the inclusion of Neill-Fraser under the subtitle of : 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘋𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦.

    I have had no such difficulty with Bowles’ subsequent ‘𝘿𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙚𝙧𝙬𝙚𝙣𝙩’. For those who would like an up-to-date account of the long, involved years of the Bob Chappell – Neill-Fraser case, this is the book to do it. It is divided into three sections: firstly, the events and background leading to Sue’s arrest and trial; secondly, the trial itself followed by the unsuccessful first appeal and the ‘out-of-hand’ rejection of an application for leave to appeal to the High Court, and thirdly, the change to the Criminal Code of Tasmania (see s402A enacted in 2015) and the subsequent, continuing efforts to be granted leave to make a second appeal to our Tasmanian Supreme Court.

    I am reasonably well acquainted with the trial itself, having read and re-read the trial transcript which was first published on 𝘛𝘢𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 all those years ago. If there are any errors/omissions in Bowles’ work, they are, in my opinion, minor. As I have read though the text, making notes, I’ve found little to disagree with, much to nod my head to and an amount of material which was new to me.Robin Bowles has gathered a large amount of information and has assembled it in a readable form. It brings us, the reader, virtually to the point where we now are waiting on Justice Brett, who has reserved his decision on Neill-Fraser’s application for leave to make a second appeal. When the present series of ‘2nd Appeal’ hearings concluded recently with the evidence of former Victorian detective Colin McLaren, Justice Brett advised Counsel that he would reserve his decision and that there were some other matters that would take a couple of weeks of his time before he would be able to prepare his decision.

    We many are eagerly awaiting his decision. Will Susan Neill-Fraser be granted leave to make a second appeal? By the way, I []was asking the Editor to place a ‘temporary embargo’ on comments on this piece, while Justice Brett is still working his way to a decision on Neill-Fraser’s application.

    𝘿𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙚𝙧𝙬𝙚𝙣𝙩 / Robin Bowles. Scribe Publications, Brunswick, Australia. 2019.[xv & 366 pages, 17 black and white photos inserted within the text.]

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 10, 2019 at 12:28 pm

      And I asked the Editor not to close TT until Justice Brett announces his decision so that TT can write one final Article (closed to comments).

      And of course you don’t know what it is to be a scientist. But just look at the number of Andrew Urban’s recent blogs. The quality on his blog is mostly wortless junk that has no evidence based analysis and conclusions.

      Was it not you who, with respect to Meaghan, said something to the effect that people who take drugs also tend be liars? Shall I provide the reference to your own TT post so that you can read what you posted?

    • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

      March 10, 2019 at 1:16 pm

      Did you notice the reference to a 50 cent coin? If you did then why don’t you inform us all here and also inform Andrew Urban, Colin McLaren and Charlie Bezzina?

      Robin was the most neutral out of the three (Robin Bowles, Andrew Urban, Colin McLaren).

      Since you have read and re-read the trial transcript then how is it that you haven’t noticed what was on pages 57, 89-91, about the winch handle and the rope. Crime scene photo 7 was actually handled by Colin McLaren on Episode 3 of Undercurrent but he just picked it up and moved it to another location. This is a link to the overlooked evidence

      https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=952213084982091&id=100005802249120

      The large red winch handle in a winch on the main mast and the rope from that winch to the skylite hatch was overlooked by the Victorian ex-detectives and by the TasPol detectives!

      Have fun wondering what it may have been the case had that winch handle been put away after use that night and the rope removed from the winch. Had you read Bowles’ book carefully you would have discovered thst it was Sue who took the handle out of that winch and placed it onto the deck. Why did Sue want to alter the crime scene when she was asked not to touch anything the afternoon she was allowed to board the yacht at the Constitution Dock? Several crime scene photographs show the large red winch handle on the deck next to the main mast. Have a good careful look of the photo of Four Winds that is embedded in Bill Rowlings’ review article linked above.

  44. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 9, 2019 at 9:05 pm

    Very prudent not to put the Tasmanian “justice” on notice on the basis of the words of a witness who had already demonstrated to be unreliable.

    Several people made contact with me, via FB messenger, after my technical analysis of Mr Colin McLaren’s work on this case was posted below couple of more weeks ago. As a result, I am now in regular contact with a few and am kept informed about Andrew’s way of purging out comments that he disagrees with.

    Below is a copy of what I received a short while ago. The person, code named Justice Advocate, informed me that this was submitted yesterday on Andrew Urban’s “biased wrongful convictions website” and that it has not yet been approved by Andrew. I have the person’s permission to post it here. The relevant link to the latest Mr Urban’s blog is here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/09/meaghan-vass-inconvenient-eyewitness-to-murder/

    ——— received via FB messenger ——-

    “Dear Dr Klugman,

    I assume that you know that Ms Neill-Fraser’s legal team, as well as Mr Colin McLaren have, via Meaghan’s April 2017 signed Statutory Declaration (since withdrawn), implicated a man who lived on a yacht on the Derwent. That man, code named ”Pablo” in Colin’s book, appeared as a witness in the Supreme Court in early Nivember 2017. He stated “I’ve never been on the Four Winds at all”.

    Please read this article
    https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5027891/witness-grilled-in-neill-fraser-appeal/

    Since you are a very educated person, with a PhD, who also has considerable visibility and influence in Australia by the virtue of being the President of Civil Liberties Australia, I ask whether you by your words above are willing to accept the recent statement of a person who had previously demonstrated to be very unreliable to then put the life of “Pablo” in danger, or at least contribute to him being harassed, even though you haven’t mentioned him. It is my opinion that your above statement indicates that you believe that Meaghan and two men boarded the yacht. It is obvious to those who read the news articles as to who the two men are.

    Why do you believe that the truth is finally coming out? I read that Meaghan was an note keeper and had a diary where she wrote about the evening on Four Winds. Colin McLaren stated, in a video that was played in the Supreme Court recently, that he was told by one of Meaghan’s associates about a diary where Meaghan wrote what she saw when she and others boarded the yacht.

    Please read the very bottom part of this long article.

    https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/sue-neillfraser-appeal-final-witness-quizzed-over-dealings-with-underworld-figures/news-story/0809c119f7a6047fede3affdffeb6e25

    Shouldn’t we as concerned citizens about justice, and as civil libertarians, demand that the diary be presented to authorities for the verification of Meaghan’s latest statement? Otherwise, the Meaghan story should be totally abandoned.

    I suggest to you Dr Klugman that is very prudent not to put the Tasmanian “justice” on notice on the basis of the words of a witness who had already demonstrated to be unreliable. Don’t you think so?

    • Geraldine Allan

      March 9, 2019 at 9:17 pm

      Dr Klugman, I suggest Andrew Urban smells a rat or even a few. He’s not silly nor are you.

      • Geraldine Allan

        March 9, 2019 at 11:24 pm

        I’ve had enough. Generally I ignore below-the-belt comments, as they say more about the poster than they do the target. However, my most recent messenger at 10.45pm tonight (09/03/19) is, in the given situation worthy of posting. I suggest numerous posters receive private f/b messages.

        I’ve deleted names and replaced with X, Y, Z, & AB, as I don’t want any sleuth/trolls contacting said persons/authorities.

        “Dear Gerald, I am furious at some P Lozo comments directed at you. Why don’t you issue a defamation writ for his republishing defamatory comment, even though the original was deleted? His latest innuendo if offensive at best and fowl at worst. He oversteps the mark far too often.

        Being well aware you are already dealing with the original source and others who have republished, I note TT removed it once alerted that it was part of the subject of defamation action. Also, what about the incorrect info in his post; including it to add credence eh? It also occurred to me that there are two other ppl who use that incorrect information to threaten. It seems to me the ‘tip-off’ source could be one and the same. What do you think? I expect you don’t need me to remind you :- I trust you are keeping a record of these posts as they add to the evidence of affect when this matter next raises its ugly head.

        Do you remember what X @ Y Commission said? You know what I’m talking about, but being careful as I know you were hacked by person Z — bit amateur tho, lol. She referred to some of those letters to said authority as “Vitriolic”, if my memory serves me correctly? It takes a vitriolic person to align with one eh? Says more about the person than you, I suggest.

        Btw, going back to the hacking, I recall you were advised that it was a criminal matter. Did you file formal complaint? How dreadfully incomprehensible was/is all that? Such betrayal of AB, who would be aghast. Have to say tho, knowing the person, how unsurprising, not the first time for stooping to the lowest of low levels. There are some evil ppl in life.

        My dear & loyal friend, I know you are above all this — you’ve shown that over the decades. Stay strong, although I recognise it must be indeed frustrating and trying. When all else fails and certain ppl are shown to be wrong, or acting wrongfully, resorting to dirty tricks seems to be their only comeback. You and I have seen this so often over the years, and mostly from those who cannot afford to be caught-out. Except, you-et-al did catch ’em, and then they tried to buy your silence.OMG!! Of course I know you still have that trump card up your sleeve, along with the couple of other dynamites. How on earth do you sit on them in silence. I know you have a wise strategic plan, but to be honest – I would burst.

        Meanwhile, I am relieved that there are numerous decent ppl prepared to stand-up at any cost & take flak, for the greater good. Finally, we can perhaps feel the time is nearing for a just outcome for SN-F. Although, I’m ever so conscious of false hope.”

        • Geraldine Allan

          March 10, 2019 at 7:33 am

          A few hours after posting I asked Editor/Moderator (via email) to not post my above reply.
          I was annoyed with myself as I broke my own rule & reacted to a foul & irrelevant comment. Hopefully in due course it will be deleted.

          Dr Kris Klugman is a decent learned person as well as a human asset to our Australian society. Her work is admirable. Thus I felt it responsible to support Andrew Urban’s decision to not publish the denigrating comment.
          Enough said.

          My friend gave her permission to re-post the message. She added more; I left it at the original. I didn’t correct grammar/spelling. The value is in the content

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        March 10, 2019 at 10:14 am

        Silly or not but he is very biased. I wanted to understand his bias – where it came from. I read everything I could find. I still can’t work it out.

        Why does Andrew like to leave out the one crucial piece of evidence that distinguishes the witness statement of John Hughes and the statement of Grant Maddock? John heard an overboard motor. Grant didn’t have an overboard motor in his dinghy and was rowing? Also, there is a difference in motoring a dinghy versus rowing a dinghy.

  45. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 9, 2019 at 6:32 pm

    Lola,

    You might like to hear how a powerful witness statement from an articulate witness (the survivor of a brutal sexually motivated attack) combined with some other influence, led to a horrific wrongful conviction of innocent man who had alibis that he was quite a distance away at the time of the attack. That will teach you to be very skeptical about what witnesses say.

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/09/meaghan-vass-inconvenient-eyewitness-to-murder/#more-1780

    Note that Micahel Griesbach commented on my Facebook in 2017 when I wrote about the Steven Avery case.

    I do not rely on what witnesses say as much as I rely of physical evidence! The physical evidence in this case tells me that Bob’s body was extracted from the saloon of Four Winds through the saloon starboard skylite hatch with the aid of a winch on the main mast. This tells me that the person who extracted the body had some knowledge of yachts, skylite hatches the location where the winch handle was stored, and that the person most likely wasn’t physically strong and didn’t have help of a physically strong person. A physically weak person whose lifting power is no more than 15 Kg could have done it.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 9, 2019 at 9:11 pm

      CORRECTION TO MY ABOVE POST:

      The correct link is to this YouTube video:

      Watch “Highlights: Michael Griesbach discusses the wrongful conviction of Steven Avery” on YouTube
      https://youtu.be/yskJlDiJmW0

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 9, 2019 at 9:30 pm

      Correction to my above post:

      the correct link is to this YouTube video where Michael Griesbach (a former Prosecutor at State of Wisconsin) talks about the 1980’s wrongful conviction of Steven Avery, who 2 years after his release was convicted of murder.

      Watch “Highlights: Michael Griesbach discusses the wrongful conviction of Steven Avery” on YouTube
      https://youtu.be/yskJlDiJmW0

      • Lola Moth

        March 10, 2019 at 9:40 am

        Peter, thank you for the link. I found it very informative because those on the panel were able to articulate my own thoughts on such matters very well. I agree with their logical and realistic views on police and prosecutors, and especially how they can cause witnesses to doubt themselves when they try to direct them to make their testimony fit with the narrative they have decided is the truth. My views on the SN-F case remain unchanged.

        As to your statement that the video “will teach you to be very sceptical about what witnesses say”, I can only say that the reason behind why a witness might lie or be evasive must be taken into account. If a witness lies to protect themselves or others then it is deplorable, but understandable. If a witness, having never been in contact with crime or the legal system before, has been deliberately led astray by police or prosecutors then it is also understandable. If a witness deliberately goes out of their way to lie it usually denotes guilt or mental illness.

        I have been on the witness stand many times and have never lied. I have put myself in jeopardy by telling the truth and I have suffered because of it. A 15 year old girl with no-one to support her, and existing in a community of criminals and drug dealers, doesn’t have much choice in what amount of truth she gets to admit she witnessed.

        I will be very interested to see how MV speaks of SN-F. If she ever calls her “that lady” I will know she thinks SN-F is innocent of the crime she is being punished for. You can’t use a title of resect for someone you think is guilty of such a crime.

        • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

          March 10, 2019 at 7:58 pm

          I didn’t imply that the witness (Penny) lied nor was the point of the video to do with a lie but a mistaken identification by the eyewitness!

          During the course of the attack Penny made sure to pay a lot of attention to her attacker’s facial features just in case she survived so that she can recognize him. Even so, she misidentified who attacked her.

          What I am saying here is that an eyewitness can be very certain as to what they saw and still be incorrect. Hence why one needs to be cautious and look beyond eyewitness statements. For example: weather conditions; level of light; noise conditions; geometry; physical evidence, etc.

          As for Meaghan: one has to look at how it evolved over the last 3 years; the changing story; the pressure on her; poverty, drugs and the temptation of money, etc.

          Just because a witness comes a decade after the trial and offers a new account that contradicts her old account it doesn’t mean that the latest account is the true account. I am very sceptical of people who years later change their story. She changed it more than once. And I can see the financial motivation.

  46. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 9, 2019 at 12:48 pm

    On my study of discarded chewing/bubble gum blob distribution and size

    As part of the further development of my ‘Chewing Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer of DNA’, which I initially introduced in a very brief form on TT in April 2015 and have been gradually extending it ever since, I recently visited the Westfield Marion (a shopping centre in the Adelaide suburb of Marion) to study the distribution of discarded chewing/bubble gum blobs as well as their sizes relative to a 50 cent coin, on the floor of the carpark. I also visited the Brighton Library – City of Holdfast Bay on Jetty Rd, Brighton (a beach suburb of Adelaide) and have taken a number of photographs of discarded chewing/bubble gum blobs on footpaths around and in front of the library complex. I sure looked silly placing a 50 cent coin repeatedly along the footpath and taking photos with my mobile phone camera.

    The photographs shown on my Facebook account is a representative sample of a large number of photograph I took. Each photograph shows at least one discarded chewing/bubble gum blob and a 50 cent coin. Some of the photographs are from the shopping centre car park. Others are from a footpath in front of the library complex at Brighton.

    The relevant link to my FB post is here

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=958006884402711&id=100005802249120

    The reason I am using a 50 cent coin as a reference size is because I learned from Robin Bowles’ recent book (Death on the Derwent: Sue Neill-Fraser’s story https://g.co/kgs/8d9hR4) that the visible small dark stain on the walkway of Four Winds that was swabbed for DNA was actually the size of a 50 cent coin.

    This study is part of my larger study of the Susan Neill-Fraser case, in particular about how the DNA of Meaghan Vass got onto the walkway of the Four Winds yacht.

    As I stated below in my recent Comment titled The area of the dark stain on Four Winds deck is comparable in area to chewing/bubble gum blobs and stains on shopping mall floors, car-parks and footpaths on March 8, 2019 at 6:23 am, “I have recently extended my ‘Chewing Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer of DNA’ by suggesting that the weathering effects have spread the hemoglobin over an area larger than the original visible dark stain, and hence why luminol reacted over an significantly larger area than the area of the visible small dark stain. Luminol reacted over an area a bit smaller than 21 cm x 26 cm. I am planning an experiment to test the validity of my claim about the weathering events.”

    The results of my experimental work will be posted on my Facebook in due course.

  47. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 9, 2019 at 9:09 am

    Meaghan Vass’ alleged 2009 diary

    Supporters of Sue Neill-Faser can throw an egg or two all over my face when Meaghan Vass shows her (forensically verified) 2009 diary with an entry saying that she witnessed a crime on Four Winds. It was claimed by Karen Keefe that she had read Meaghan’s 2009 diary and saw an entry about the events of the Australia Day. Karen claimed to have the diary in storage.

    Wouldn’t the existence of a forensically verified Meaghan’s alleged entry in her 2009 diary for the Australia Day be the one piece of evidence that could back up Meaghan’s statement on the forthcoming ’60 Minutes’ program?

    Unlike most of you who are jumping up in air with joy about Meaghan’s new story that will appear on ’60 Minutes’, my feet are firmly on solid ground because I firmly believe that had the alleged diary existed then it would have been submitted to the defence team in 2017. Had the alleged diary existed then it is highly unlikely that Karen Keefe would have been charged with perversion of justice and the corruption of a witness (Meaghan Vass). Even Colin McLaren wasn’t able to get his hands on the alleged diary.

    Now you know why a scientist is confidently saying that what will be aired on ’60 Minutes’ about Meaghan’s ‘confession’ is absolute nonsense that is financially motivated!

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 9, 2019 at 2:42 pm

      I mentioned the alleged 2009 diary of Meaghan Vass in a number of recent comments. I ought to therefore provide a reference to a news article that mentions that diary. I loaned my copy of McLaren’s book to an associate so can’t check if and where the diary is mentioned in his book.

      Below is an extract from a February 7, 2019 article in Mercury titled Sue Neill-Fraser appeal: Final witness quizzed over dealings with underworld figures

      My emphasis is in bold:

      “COLIN McLaren, a former Victorian detective turned true crime writer, has told the Supreme Court in Hobart of his dealings with underworld figures during his research into the Susan Neill-Fraser case.

      The court, which is hearing an application for Neill-Fraser to mount a last-ditch appeal, was on Tuesday played a video recording of Mr McLaren made on November 28, 2016 after he met with prisoner Karen Keefe, whom he referred to as “Gabby”.

      In the video, Mr McLaren is leaning into a car with Risdon Prison in the background.

      He said Ms Keefe was “very connected” to the underworld in Tasmania and was the long-term girlfriend of a man known as “Sharkie” who was the president of the Devil’s Henchmen motorcycle gang.

      “Sharkie’s also the boyfriend in recent years of one Meaghan Vass,” he said.

      “Gabby wants to help Sue Neill-Fraser … because she’s the only decent person in prison.

      “Sue Neill-Fraser she knows is completely innocent. She knows this because of this: Meaghan is a note-taker, she’s a diary keeper.”

      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.

      He said Ms Keefe told him that Ms Vass wrote about breaking into yachts with two men.

      “On this particular night on the Australia Day weekend, Meaghan stole Sue Neill-Fraser’s dinghy … went to the Four Winds knowing it was empty.”

      Mr McLaren said he was told the notes went on to say Ms Vass and the two men found Mr Chappell on board.

      “And Bob hit the roof … tried to talk them down and get them off the yacht. [One of the men] killed Bob Chappell, and that’s from Gabby,” he said.”

      Supposing that the alleged diary existed and that it did state the above alleged attack on Bob Chappell, would it not have been extremely urgent for Karen Keefe or Meaghan Vass to have submitted that diary to the defence team in 2017 to then have it examined by an forensic expert for handwriting analysis to test if it was written by Meaghan Vass?

      Suppose that had the alleged diary existed and had it then been forensically established that Meaghan Vass made an entry in 2009 about the attack on Bob Chappel, wouldn’t that (with Meaghan’s DNA on the yacht) have been sufficient to send Sue’s case directly to appeal where the conviction can then be overturned? Sue could have been freed over a year ago!

      But of course, gullible people don’t reason through very carefully to then arrive at the most reliable conclusion after taking into account all the relevant information. A case of Tunnel Vision and Confirmation Bias!Just look at some of the opinions below. Also have a look at the over-confident statement of CLA’s president (Dr Klugman) on Andrew Urban’s most recent blog

      https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/09/meaghan-vass-inconvenient-eyewitness-to-murder/

      • William Boeder

        March 9, 2019 at 4:54 pm

        Dr Peter Lozo, given the imminence the television interview featuring Ms Meaghan Vass, in that this televised interview has been mysteriously banned from being viewed in Tasmania, you may well have to recant every claim you have directed toward Sue Neill-Fraser.

        Have you prepared a national apologetic response to the people in Tasmania and elsewhere that have been bothered by your speculative narratives, to have on hand when the accused may well be proven innocent?

        One might suggest it is crunch time later this evening that may have you and many others question your motives in the manner selected by you, and delivered by you, that may indeed imperil your forensic scientist credentials for all times hence.

        • Lyndall

          March 9, 2019 at 6:32 pm

          Hi William,

          I caught the last few eps of the ‘Undercurrent’ TV series – wow, what an eye-opener (and worrying implications re Tas Police & perhaps even DPP’s office? It’s all a bit strange). So I’m very much looking forward to significant revelations to finally resolve the case in the upcoming interview with Meaghan Vass and her tortured soul.

          If your internet connection is good where you are, then perhaps you might like to catch up on the 6-part series which I believe wasn’t aired in Tas but nonetheless openly available online: https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation

          I had the link buried in another comment (‘F’wll Contributors – Vica…’ etc) where I use this and other examples to argue for a new and very much improved Tasmanian integrity & anti-corruption commission. Perhaps I should’ve put it here in the first place.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 9, 2019 at 11:24 pm

            Did your open eyes pick out a huge error in Colin McMcLaren’s crime scene analysis shown in Episode 3? One doesn’t need to be a police detective nor does one need to be a scientist in order to pick out his error. Once you notice that error then you will wonder why he didn’t notice a crucial piece of physical evidence that could have led him in a different direction.

        • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

          March 9, 2019 at 6:35 pm

          Please write something new that will be of benefit to the advancement of the human society and that will, within the context of the Susan Neill-Fraser case, lead to the advancement of forensic science. Otherwise please buzz off and learn the English language. I was 13 when I started learning it.

        • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

          March 9, 2019 at 6:56 pm

          “recant every claim you have directed toward Sue Neill-Fraser.”

          What – on the basis of the few words by a witness who over the last 2+ years demonstrated
          amply that she is totally unreliable, unpredictable, and is financially desperate!

          I wonder why she stormed out of the interview with 60 minutes then returned in a very composed manner. That is about the most predicable thing – she will storm out and she will change her story.

          Are you out of your mind or don’t you posses a reasoning mind to see that it is all a big hoax?

        • Geraldine Allan

          March 9, 2019 at 8:57 pm

          William, my understanding is that the 60Minutes tomorrow night (Sunday 10th March) has an embargo for Tasmania, due to current maters before the courts. There is always a danger of contempt. Thus that may solve the ‘mystery’ for you.

          It is frustrating to read the red herrings, especially when they are disparaging of other persons, and without evidence. Nevertheless, some of us know a lot more than we record; some of us sat though recent Supreme Court hearings; some of us have reliable access to transcripts; some of us care too deeply about seeing justice done for Susan Neill-Fraser, insofar as she is afforded a fair & proper trial.

          Those who support the wrongdoing as has happened, and which has clearly been identified, are naive of systemic modus-operandi, thus are unable to differ between the real perverters and those who have been so wrongly accused — the good guys.

          Stay true to yourself William, I have every faith in you. There is no point in lowering personal standards to compete with those who seem to be unable to accept they hold mistaken beliefs.

          • William Boeder

            March 9, 2019 at 11:09 pm

            Thank you Geraldine (and also my kind respects in response to the comment posted by Lyndall.)
            We know each other quite well and that our observations and comments are fair and credible when expressed in one’s written opinions.
            In times past I had read and understood each and every documented reference that you had sent to myself Geraldine, that related to matters that do not accord to the proper carriage of Justice in this State.
            I am pleased to vouch for your personal character and integrity, also that your credibility is arguably paramount and deserves the respect of all others.

            One must not be misled by vacuous commentary that from time to time emanates from persons external to this State.
            Far wiser indeed is to trust one’s instincts rather than suggestive hootings from persons bedevilled with some form of curious intent.
            Stay well Geraldine and Lyndall and do please maintain your spirited excellence.

          • Geraldine Allan

            March 10, 2019 at 7:45 am

            William for now there doesn’t appear a reply button diirectly under your comment below. Thx for your support. I’m okay; I’ve dealt with malice more than once in my life.
            My frustration is with the constant and at times erroneous, attempts by some to distract from the great and successful (albeit wearing & challenging) work of dedicated people, who don’t need to remove the log from their eye in order to see the splinter. Aren’t they simply the most wonderful & generous humans as they go about their business of working for the greater good.
            Dr Kris K is welcome to return to my home for Devonshire morning-tea any time.

        • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

          March 10, 2019 at 12:46 am

          Hello Boeder,

          As a contrast to your opinion of my ability to see through complex cases I offer you this link to my Facebook post where the then Prosecutor at State of Wisconsin submitted a comment. Look at the bottom of my FB post to see the comment by Michael Griesbach

          https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=577660092437394&id=100005802249120&anchor_composer=false

          Note: Michael Griesbach is the person talking in this YouTube video about the 1980’s wrongful conviction of Steven Avery

          Watch “Highlights: Michael Griesbach discusses the wrongful conviction of Steven Avery” on YouTube
          https://youtu.be/yskJlDiJmW0

          So, unless you can make an advancement to knowledge, please buzz off.

          • William Boeder

            March 10, 2019 at 10:24 am

            Hello Lozo, given that I am not susceptiple to any of your hootings, nor do I care for your serial coverage over a matter of serious Statewide contention.
            What does concern myself and a great number of others, happens to be the huge volume of bias you have incorporated into your scathing regard to Ms Sue Neill Fraser, simply based on the unsafe conviction forced upon this same by the justice department and the Judiciary officials appointed.

            Considering the abscence of fact evidence in your narratives along with your bias emphasised in the same manner assumed by the officials that had conducted the SN-F Supreme Court Trial, you have marked yourself as a person seeking to gain from the otious commentary that many people find annoying.

  48. Lola Moth

    March 8, 2019 at 7:49 pm

    I have just watched the 60 Minutes promo featuring MV. What I saw was a terrified girl who has been cast as the villain by both sides but who in reality is another victim of this crime. She may not be likeable in this interview but she deserves to be listened to. She was damned if she talked and damned if she stayed silent for nearly a decade, and now she deserves to be heard without prejudice.

    • Kate

      March 8, 2019 at 8:38 pm

      “without prejudice” subject to a psychiatric examination, full drug test and an MRI.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 9, 2019 at 8:09 am

      I will look out to see whether she will show her 2009 diary that Karen Keefe claimed to have in storage.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      March 9, 2019 at 11:22 am

      Do you now get the big picture, Lola?

      There is Kareen Keefe. There is Meaghan Vass. There is Paul Wroe. There is Susan Neill-Fraser.

      Which of the above listed was never on Four Winds?

      If you put Meaghan Vass on Four Winds then you must also put Paul Wroe on Four Winds for the same night, because it is the defence claim, and Colin McLaren’s claim, that Paul Wroe was part of the trio that including Meaghan Vass who boarded Four Winds.

      Which of the above 4, if any, can be trusted to have spoken the truth about the events of the Australia Day 2009 ?

      Meaghan’s alleged 2009 diary can help Sue, Karen, and Meaghan. So why hasn’t it been produced since it was first mentioned by Karen Keefe in a conversation with Colin McLaren over 2 years ago?

      • Lola Moth

        March 9, 2019 at 4:46 pm

        Peter, I am doubtful as to the existence of a diary with an entry that details the murder of Bob Chappell. To maintain a regular journal requires some sort of regular life and MV did not have an ordered, regular life in those days. There may be a journal that she kept notes in from time to time but I can’t imagine it is set out as a daily or weekly journal that is regularly updated. At best it would be undated ramblings but that doesn’t mean such a written account should be dismissed as unimportant or made up.

        As to your list of people who may, or may not, have been on the yacht, I think you have missed a great many names from your list. It is impossible to prove a negative so I prefer to look at who may have been there rather than who claims to have never been there.

        We don’t yet know what the 60 Minutes story contains and what MV now says is the truth. The odds are that this TT forum will no longer be available for us to continue this discussion after the 60 Minutes story goes to air but I have your FB details and I will keep abreast of your work via that site. I don’t have TV so I won’t be able to watch it as it goes to air but I will find it somewhere and view it as soon as I have time.

        • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

          March 9, 2019 at 7:56 pm

          Hi Lola,

          You can list as many people as you like but it was only Meaghan, Sue and Paul who are the suspects of being on Four Winds during the murder, and who also appeared under oath in the Supreme Court about whether they were on Four Winds and/or committed the crime.

          Sue claimed at her 2010 hat she had nothing to do with Bob’s dissappearance.

          Meaghan (under oath at Sues’s trial in 2010 in the Supreme Court) said that she was never on Four Winds.

          Meaghan (under oath at Sue’e right-to-appeal application in late 2017 the Supreme Court) stated that her April 2017 signed statement is false and that she was threatened to sign it.

          Paul Wroe (under oath at Sue’e right-to-appeal application in late 2017 the Supreme Court) stated:

          “I’ve never been on the Four Winds at all”
          “I’ve never met the doctor or his wife.”

          Neither Paul Wroe nor Meghan Vass contradicted each other’s testimony during their appearance in the Supreme Court in late 2017. There is no evidence that they knew each other. Paul seems to be the easy scapegoat for Sue because of his prior criminal conviction and the fact that his yacht was not far from Four Winds. But there is no physical evidence tying him to Four Winds or its dinghy. He gave his DNA and finger prints to police several years ago. There was no match with any of the exhibits.

          Now that the Court is no longer is session it is bewildering that Meaghan comes out on national TV to contradict what she had said under oath in 2017 at the Supreme Court , thus basically admitting to perjury in late 2017. But, she can’t be charged with perjury because the authorities don’t believe that she was on the yacht. Therefore there is no perjury,

          Paul Wroe was examined and cross-examined. He wasn’t On Four Winds! Therefore, I conclude that Meaghan Vass wasn’t on Four Winds either.

          This new statement by Meaghan cannot be trusted, but it sure will garner public support for Sue, Eve, Colin and even Meaghan. But will it win battle in a Court of Law if it gets that far.

    • Geraldine Allan

      March 9, 2019 at 8:46 pm

      Lola, as I posted yesterday, “… 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. …”.

      I stand by the my observation that some comment, “ seems to me to be further derogatory (even defamatory) of MV…”. The horrible innuendo and speculation about this young woman who is attempting to resolve a huge conflicting situation, is way beyond the pale.

      For your information I quote, “… The 60 Minutes interview airs March 10, 2019 (except in Tasmania – although the promo spot is available online on the 60 Minutes fb page). Before you ask: 60 Minutes producers have confirmed they did not pay Vass a fee for the interview.

      That ‘red herring’ has now been caught – as it was always going to be. …”
      https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/09/meaghan-vass-inconvenient-eyewitness-to-murder/
      Lola, my understanding is that TT Editor has now provided you my email address.

  49. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 8, 2019 at 6:23 am

    The area of the dark stain on Four Winds deck is comparable in area to chewing/bubble gum blobs and stains on shopping mall floors, car-parks and footpaths

    I recently found out, from Robin Bowles’ book, that the visible dark stain on the walkway of Four Winds next to the starboard boarding gate (the visible stain from which a DNA swab was taken and later found to have DNA that matched Meaghan) was about the size of a 50c coin. How then can one of the best former Victorian homicide detectives (Charlie Bezzina) go on a Current Affair program and say that Meaghan’s DNA was the size of a “bowl of vomit”?

    See and hear Mr Bezzina on this program

    https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2019/clip-cjrixks72000e0ho5sn74m81x

    At time 5:35 – 5:54, Mr Bezzina talks about the DNA and uses the term “bowl of vomit”

    Andrew Urban prefers the term “pancake” or “BigFoot”. I saw a comment by a “Henry K (retired forensic scientist)” on Andrew Urban’s blog. Henry tried to convince Andrew Urban that Andrew has an incorrect understanding about the DNA sample. This is what Henry said about Andrew’s statement that the
    “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”.

    “No it wasn’t. It is true that luminol reacted over the area the size you quoted. But it isn’t true that the “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”. Accuracy of reporting is important Andrew.”

    Then in the follow up comment, Henry wrote:

    “Andrew, I h’ve read the post you referred me to. However, nowhere does it say that the “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”. 

    I believe that you are confusing the area over which luminol reacted with the area over which the DNA swab was taken from. My understanding, by reading the book on the case by Robin Bowles, is that the dark stain was only about the size of a 50c coin. The swab would have been taken from that visible stain. As you can read on your own post that you referred me to, the Tasmanian forensic scientist gave a reason as to why luminol reacted to that size region. This is what he wrote in his email:

    “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, e.g. spitting on the deck cannot also be ruled out. I hope this makes sense.”

    I don’t see why, on the basis of the information you posted on that other other blog, you feel justified in saying that “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”. 

    See here

    https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/05/undercurrent-ep-6-showcased-at-aidc/#more-1765

    Anyway, back in April 2015, I formed an opinion that had Meaghan’s DNA been transferred via some substance on the bottom of someone’s shoe that it most likely was via a chewing/bubble gum that got stuck to the sole of someone’s shoe.

    After reading Robin’s book, I decided to do a bit of research on the size of chewing/bubble gum blobs (or their stains) that are found in large numbers on floors of shopping malls, their car-parks and footpaths. I took dozens of photos recently to see how the sizes of blobs (or their stains) compare to the area of a 50 cent coin. I will post the photographs on my FB within a day or two. Suffice it to say, the blobs (or their stains) are dark and most of them are comparable in area to that of a 50 cent coin. And there are a large number of them per unit area in shopping malls, car parks and footpaths that adjoin shopping centres.

    It is my hypothesis that the small dark stain on the walkway of Four Winds next to the starboard boarding gate is the result of the moist dirt being transferred onto the deck from a chewing gum when someone’s foot hit the deck upon boarding the yacht via the starboard boarding gate, probably on the morning of 27th. A number of people boarded Four Winds after 7 am on 27th via a police boat that was tied to the starboard of Four Winds for most of that morning. My hypothesis is that minute traces of blood (probably from an oral problem) had gotten mixed in with the saliva during the chewing process. The saliva (and the traces of blood) then got expelled from the chewing gum when the affected shoe hit the deck with the weight of at least 30 Kg standing in the shoe cavity.

    I have recently extended my ‘Chewing Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer of DNA’ by suggesting that the weathering effects have spread the hemoglobin over an area larger than the original visible dark stain, and hence why luminol reacted over an significantly larger area than the area of the visible small dark stain. Luminol reacted over an area a bit smaller than 21 cm x 26 cm. I am planning an experiment to test the validity of my claim about the weathering events.

  50. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 7, 2019 at 11:30 pm

    Some more relevant information for those who haven’t kept up with the developments since the completion of Colin McLaren’s work on the Susan Neill-Fraser case

    I am aware of the possibility that a number of people from UK and USA (Steven Avery’s supporters) were directed to this site via Twitter. As a brief background, the work that was done by Mr Colin McLaren in the Susan Neill-Fraser case was tabled in a form of a 25 page ‘white paper’ to the Tasmanian Government in mid-May 2017.

    See here

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/death-on-the-derwent-secret-file-could-prove-yacht-killers-innocence-20170822-gy1pix.html

    The recently shown 6 Episodes of Undercurrent documentary is largely based on Mr McLaren’s work on the case prior to May 2017. The link for all 6 Episodes is here

    https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation

    Below I offer a few developments since May 2017.

    “The woman at the centre of an accusation of corrupting a witness in an effort to overturn Susan Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction will make a bid for freedom next week.

    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”.

    See here

    https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5442645/woman-at-centre-of-susan-neill-fraser-witness-claims-has-case-delayed/

    I have researched a sufficient number of cases since early 2012 to have realised that one needs to wait until both sides of the case have examined or cross-examined the witnesses. This is part of the DPP’s statement related to Colin McLaren:

    “Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates SC says it was “bizarre” that if Ms Vass had admitted to Mr McLaren she saw a fight on the Four Winds on the night Mr Chappell disappeared and naming those involved, that it would not have appeared in her statement.

    He said there was also no reliable evidence that Ms Vass had admitted being on the Four Winds.

    “Every piece of objective evidence that is before you is that she didn’t make that statement,” he said.

    “She says she hasn’t said it to anybody, she says she only signed it under duress, threats, which is supported by the videos.”

    And he said Mr McLaren’s testimony about the process of making changes to Ms Vass’ statement was contradicted by other evidence.

    “The objective evidence is completely inconsistent with his account,” he said.

    And Mr Coates said Mr McLaren had been dishonest in other evidence.

    “Clearly he’s lied about payments to witnesses. It is ridiculous to accept that he just forgot about the $750.

    “Clearly he’s on tape saying ‘Oh gee, you know how well that $750 worked, we’ve got to give them another $1500 in case there’s a retrial’.

    “It’s not reasonable to suggest he didn’t lie in respect of those matters.””

    See here

    https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/sue-neillfraser-appeal-final-witness-quizzed-over-dealings-with-underworld-figures/news-story/0809c119f7a6047fede3affdffeb6e25

  51. Lola Moth

    March 7, 2019 at 9:47 pm

    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 10:53 pm

      “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 3:39 am

      “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 pm

        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 pm

      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 2:16 pm

        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 4:09 pm

          “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 2:57 pm

        “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 4:06 pm

          “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 4:45 pm

            Did she produce the diary to get out or to help Colin?

      • Lola Moth

        March 8, 2019 at 3:04 pm

        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 4:08 pm

          Thx Lola. Yes, debate will not not cease when the TT cyber-doors close.

      • Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

        March 8, 2019 at 3:29 pm

        “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 11:40 pm

          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 am

            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 8:46 pm

            “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/

  52. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 7, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    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 12:44 am

      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 am

        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.

  53. Lola Moth

    March 7, 2019 at 5:59 pm

    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 6:49 pm

      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 7:05 pm

      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!

  54. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 7, 2019 at 2:55 pm

    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.

  55. Dr Peter Lozo

    March 7, 2019 at 9:21 am

    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 3:18 pm

      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 5:40 pm

        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 am

          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 pm

            Thankyou for your comment. It is noted.

          • William Boeder

            March 8, 2019 at 5:30 pm

            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 6:29 pm

        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 9:52 pm

          My error; I didn’t amend the name. I don’t post anonymously.

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          March 8, 2019 at 12:16 am

          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 2:01 pm

        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 3:54 pm

          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 4:52 pm

            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 3:50 pm

      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 7:57 pm

        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 9:22 pm

          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 9:49 pm

            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 2:36 am

            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 5:07 am

            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 1:40 pm

            William, Meaghan Vass knows (not speculation) what she wrote in her journal all those years ago.

    • Lola Moth

      March 7, 2019 at 5:01 pm

      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 6:46 pm

        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 10:01 pm

          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 11:12 pm

            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 2:39 am

            “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 3:13 am

            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 7:09 pm

        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 9:56 pm

          Another whoops- I amend to declare no hiding from me

  56. Dr Peter Lozo

    March 7, 2019 at 9:16 am

    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 pm

      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 3:07 pm

        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 3:29 pm

        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 4:58 pm

          That was very well put Peter! Fundamentally, it appears allot of people just do not like evidence.

          • Dr Peter Lozo

            March 7, 2019 at 7:30 pm

            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 8:48 pm

          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 10:40 pm

            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 3:46 pm

        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

  57. William Griffin

    March 6, 2019 at 8:58 pm

    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 9:58 am

      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 am

      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 am

      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 pm

        “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 5:23 pm

        For any interested persons watch 60 minutes on Sunday night Meaghan Vass is interviewed and Admitted in the said interview she was there.

      • gemgs

        March 7, 2019 at 6:50 pm

        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 8:55 pm

          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 10:00 pm

            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 am

      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”.”

  58. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    March 6, 2019 at 6:24 am

    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.

  59. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 28, 2019 at 8:42 am

    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.

  60. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 27, 2019 at 10:37 am

    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.”

  61. Rosemary

    February 27, 2019 at 8:15 am

    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 4:06 pm

      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.

  62. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 27, 2019 at 7:23 am

    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

  63. Bob

    February 26, 2019 at 7:47 pm

    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 10:14 pm

      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 10:50 pm

      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.

  64. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 26, 2019 at 5:24 pm

    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

  65. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 26, 2019 at 4:30 pm

    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 5:26 pm

      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 7:07 pm

        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 am

          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 am

            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.

  66. Emmanuel Goldstein

    February 26, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    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 3:47 pm

      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 pm

        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 8:31 pm

      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.

  67. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 26, 2019 at 11:55 am

    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.

  68. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 25, 2019 at 12:06 pm

    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.

  69. William Griffin

    February 24, 2019 at 11:36 pm

    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 am

      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 2:30 pm

        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 6:59 pm

          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 7:42 pm

            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 8:03 pm

            “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 8:27 pm

            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 8:46 pm

            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 8:24 pm

          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 8:58 pm

            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 10:50 pm

      “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

  70. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 24, 2019 at 6:48 pm

    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.

  71. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 21, 2019 at 11:29 pm

    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 9:08 pm

      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.

  72. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 21, 2019 at 6:57 pm

    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?

  73. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 18, 2019 at 6:22 am

    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 7:39 am

      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 am

        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 1:37 pm

          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.

    • Burt

      February 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm

      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 8:59 pm

        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”.

  74. Geraldine Allan

    February 17, 2019 at 11:33 am

    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 4:45 pm

      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 8:06 pm

        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 11:05 pm

          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 5:44 pm

      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.

  75. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 16, 2019 at 8:28 pm

    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

  76. William Griffin

    February 15, 2019 at 8:57 pm

    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 11:47 pm

      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 12:45 am

      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 6:41 am

        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 8:39 am

          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 7:29 pm

          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 8:41 pm

            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 12:36 am

            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 am

            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 am

            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 3:50 pm

        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.

  77. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 15, 2019 at 10:55 am

    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.

  78. Geraldine Allan

    February 14, 2019 at 1:06 pm

    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 8:01 am

      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 8:16 pm

        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.

  79. Geraldine Allan

    February 14, 2019 at 12:59 pm

    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.

  80. Geraldine Allan

    February 14, 2019 at 11:31 am

    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 pm

      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.
      …”

  81. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 13, 2019 at 11:40 pm

    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 7:49 am

      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.

  82. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 13, 2019 at 9:22 pm

    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.

  83. John Dodd

    February 13, 2019 at 7:12 pm

    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 9:28 am

      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.

  84. William Boeder

    February 12, 2019 at 1:20 pm

    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 7:44 pm

      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 2:40 am

      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 4:18 pm

        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 5:13 pm

          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 6:20 pm

          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 6:50 pm

            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 12:39 am

            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 7:16 pm

          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.

        • Peter Lozo

          February 15, 2019 at 12:47 pm

          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!

  85. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 10, 2019 at 6:02 pm

    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:

    “Meanwhile, the issue of the removal of Bob Chappell’s body was central to my crime scene analysis. In my opinion, Bob was beaten to death in the saloon by two or more persons, probably males. The murderer(s) tied rope around his body and pulled him out of the saloon area via the open skylight hatch on the starboard side, which is more than wide enough to execute the task. The rope was part of the rigging of the yacht. A length of rope was found dangling through the skylight hatch from outside roof of the saloon into the saloon itself. The rope is visible in police photographs; its presence teases the astute investigator. This clue is vital to understanding the crime scene and cannot be ignored. But it was.”

    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 9:33 pm

      Change “Sue” to “somebody or anybody” and I may give your opinion more gravitas.

      • Peter

        February 11, 2019 at 4:53 pm

        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.

  86. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 9, 2019 at 6:37 pm

    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):

    “HIS HONOUR: All right. So it’s photo 7, Mr Gunson?

    MR GUNSON SC: Photo 7 in the numbered ones we have, your Honour.

    HIS HONOUR: All right. And you’re wanting the jury to look –

    MR GUNSON SC: I want the jury –
    HIS HONOUR: – to the hatch – at the hatch to the left of the photo, which seems to have two ropes going from the vicinity of the mast to the corner of the hatch?

    MR GUNSON SC: Indeed, your Honour. Now if you look at that photograph again, Constable, we see that the upper right, if I call it, is –

    HIS HONOUR: Hang on. Hang on a minute, has she got one, have you got a photo 7?

    WITNESS: Yes.

    MR GUNSON SC: Yes.
    HIS HONOUR: All right, good.
    MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Got photo 7 there?……I have, yes.
    The rope appears to go up to a winch with a handle on it, doesn’t it?……That’s correct, yes.”

    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/

  87. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 8, 2019 at 7:15 pm

    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 11:47 pm

      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 1:13 am

      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.

  88. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 8, 2019 at 6:12 pm

    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 6:45 pm

      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

  89. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 6, 2019 at 5:25 pm

    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.”

  90. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 6, 2019 at 9:12 am

    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 am

      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

  91. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 4, 2019 at 5:36 pm

    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):

    “I’m a big strong boy. Now on the 9th of March, Inspector Powell put out a media release asking for a person who had called anonymously on the 29th of January, three days – well, yeah, three days after, to come forward and the next day a Mr John Hughes presented at police station and identified himself as that caller. He said that he had called anonymously from a phone, I think at the university. He – you’ll hear from him, he’s a fulltime carer for his mother, she’s had a stroke and he has to look after her pretty much all the time. Pretty hard life, he gets about half a day off per week from this when his brother gives him some relief from it, and on this day, Australia Day, on that evening he’d been to the movies or the casino following some golf, he’s not entirely sure which, but he went down to Marieville Esplanade where he sometimes does to look out over the water and get just a bit of peace and tranquillity, nothing amazing about it. So he went down there and he was there at about half past eleven, twelve o’clock, and he parked his car near the end of the sheds at the yacht club, so you know, round – well I’ll let him show you, I’d better not try it – and there was no one else around, in particular there was no one standing around fires – you’re puzzled by that mention but I’ll come back to it. He heard an outboard motor and he saw an inflatable dinghy with a single person in it. His impression was that that person was female, the dinghy was heading at a slow speed towards the yachts moored out from the boat sheds where, ladies and gentlemen, the Four Winds was moored. He lost sight of it and he drove off shortly after and, not wishing to be involved, he says a complicated life, he anonymously told police about his observations. So there we have it, a man just on his own, no connection with this case, and he sees inflatable dinghy, an outboard motor, a single person in it at about half past eleven, twelve o’clock on Australia Day evening heading out to where the Four Winds was. “

    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 7:33 pm

      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 8:13 pm

        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 7:04 am

          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 9:33 am

            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 pm

            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 9:11 pm

      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.

  92. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 3, 2019 at 10:36 am

    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?

  93. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 2, 2019 at 7:05 pm

    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.

    • Russell

      February 3, 2019 at 7:58 am

      That’s just the most basic bit of physics and engineering that kids usually work out for themselves. So much for PhDs.

      You really don’t get out into the real world very often, do you?

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        February 3, 2019 at 9:31 am

        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 9:41 am

        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 9:17 am

        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?

  94. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 2, 2019 at 11:39 am

    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.

  95. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 2, 2019 at 11:08 am

    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.

  96. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 1, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    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.

  97. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 1, 2019 at 1:18 pm

    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!.

  98. Rosemary

    January 31, 2019 at 5:59 pm

    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 8:11 pm

      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.

      • Russell

        February 1, 2019 at 10:15 am

        Dr Lozo … no body, no witnesses, no motive = no possible murder conviction. Law 101.

        Except, of course, in corrupt Tasmania and the USA.

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          February 1, 2019 at 11:20 am

          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 6:50 pm

      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 3:37 pm

        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

  99. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    January 31, 2019 at 9:47 am

    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 6:36 pm

      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 8:16 pm

      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.

    • garrystannus@hotmail.com

      February 2, 2019 at 6:47 am

      He will make his decision and what ‘we in the street’ believe, which should not influence the course of justice – or should it?

  100. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 31, 2019 at 8:33 am

    “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