Book review by Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
Does perverted justice prevail in Australia’s deep south?
By
Posted on
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 23:30
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
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 06:23
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.
Lola Moth
March 8, 2019 at 19:49
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 20:38
“without prejudice” subject to a psychiatric examination, full drug test and an MRI.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 9, 2019 at 08:09
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
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 16:46
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 19:56
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 20:46
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 9, 2019 at 09:09
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 14:42
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:
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 16:54
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 18:32
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 23:24
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 18:35
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 18:56
“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 20:57
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 23:09
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 07:45
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 00:46
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
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 9, 2019 at 12:48
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 9, 2019 at 18:32
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 21:11
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 21:30
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 09:40
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 19:58
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 9, 2019 at 21:05
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 21:17
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 23:24
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 07:33
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
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.
[email protected]
March 10, 2019 at 10:45
??? ???? ?? ?ℎ??! ?ℎ?? ??? ????? ?ℎ???? ?????????? ????ℎ?? ????? ? ?????? ?? ????????? ??-?????? ??????????, ???ℎ????? — ????! — ?????? ?????? ‘?????????’ — ‘??????’ ????????. ????? ?????? ?ℎ? ?????? ?? ??????? ℎ?? ????.
???? ?????, [?????? ????????? ?ℎ? ?ℎ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ????-?? ?ℎ?? ?ℎ????’? ??????ℎ????? (?? ?? ???????) ???????????, ???, ????, ??? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ???? ??? ℎ????ℎ ??????? ?ℎ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?ℎ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ?ℎ? ????.] ???, ??? ?????????, ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ℎ???. ??? ???, ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? … ?? ???? ???
???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????’ ???? ?ℎ?? ?ℎ? ?????? ????? ??? ??????ℎ:
????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????? (27Feb2019):
Launching her book: ‘????ℎ ?? ?ℎ? ???????’.[pic of small slice of those in attendance: by Garry Stannus]
Review: ‘????ℎ ?? ?ℎ? ???????’.
In the introduction to her book, ‘????ℎ ?? ?ℎ? ???????’, author Robin Bowles writes:
“? ???? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????????, ??? ? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????.”
– 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 ????? ?? ??? ???????t comes on the heels of two others: that of ex-Vic detective Colin McLaren’s ???????? ??????? and Andrew Urban’s ?????? ?? ??? ???????????. Before that we read and viewed Eleri Harris’s: ???????? ???????’, 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 ???? ????? : ?????????? ????? ????? ?????, 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 ???? ?????, I was not comfortable with the inclusion of Neill-Fraser under the subtitle of : ?????????? ????? ????? ?????.
I have had no such difficulty with Bowles’ subsequent ‘????? ?? ??? ???????’. 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 ????????? ????? 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.
????? ?? ??? ??????? / 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
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 13:16
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.
Geraldine Allan
March 10, 2019 at 10:45
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 17:26
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/
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 10, 2019 at 12:38
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 15:42
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 23:17
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 08:12
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
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 10, 2019 at 17:10
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 19:40
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 22:07
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 07:43
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
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 22:15
Lola,
Good effort. Try again but first compare what I wrote with what you wrote to see what you need to improve on.
[email protected]
March 10, 2019 at 22:22
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!”
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 11, 2019 at 05:58
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 11, 2019 at 07:46
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 11, 2019 at 11:04
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
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!
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 12, 2019 at 08:29
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 09:50
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
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
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 13, 2019 at 20:26
Dear William (Hank)
I have something very important to tell you, and it is going to come as quite a shock. You and I have been in therapy together for quite a while now. You and I are actually one and the same!
Dissociative Identity Disorder. https://www.promises.com/blog/dsm-5-new-criteria-for-multiple-personality-disorder/
Its ok everyone else knows, I am sorry you had to be the last one to find out.
Me, Myself & Irene. Alter ego
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJIQU-icSN4
Kate
March 12, 2019 at 13:11
The Media Syndrome (2016)
By David Altheide (sociologist)
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315532967
Lola Moth
March 12, 2019 at 19:15
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 21:41
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 13:38
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 16:20
“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 21:01
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 21:16
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
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
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 20:53
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
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 22:09
“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
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 12, 2019 at 12:50
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 21:45
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 07:11
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 17:11
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 18:28
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 20:36
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 00:09
No, not me Peter, but i do wonder to the relevance?
Dr Peter Lozo
March 15, 2019 at 07:44
“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 09:18
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 02:29
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 13, 2019 at 10:05
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
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 13, 2019 at 17:07
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 14, 2019 at 11:01
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 13:00
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?
Kate
March 14, 2019 at 14:02
60 minutes received an interesting review by media watch (ABC iview) on 11/3/2019 re sperm donor.
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/media-watch
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 14, 2019 at 19:30
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/
[email protected]
March 16, 2019 at 12:38
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 14:20
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 15:17
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.
Peter Lozo stuffs-up big time - by Garry Stannus
March 17, 2019 at 16:57
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.
[email protected]
Rosie C-C
March 17, 2019 at 18:10
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 22:38
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 18:17
If that is your only claim to fame garrystannus, I will not be seeking your autograph.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 17, 2019 at 19:11
“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 19:17
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 18, 2019 at 18:08
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 08:54
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
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:
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?
How relevant is the following statement of Mr Conde at Sue’s trial to whether or not he could have been looking at the ??????????? dinghy that belonged to the Four Winds yacht on the Australia Day afternoon?
“?ℎ? ??????????? ????ℎ? ?? ?ℎ? ?ℎ???????ℎ? ?? ??? ?ℎ? ????ℎ? ? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ????. ”
(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 14:38
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
Susan Neill Fraser gains a second appeal - by Garry Stannus
March 21, 2019 at 17:09
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 18:11
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 19:44
“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 22:17
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?
Susan Neill Fraser gains a second appeal - by Garry Stannus
March 22, 2019 at 08:39
Yes Geraldine, I did read that section, [Brett J at page 11, para 49].
“?ℎ? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????. ?ℎ? ????????? ???????? ?? ℎ??? ???? ????? ?? 25 ???????? 2019. ?ℎ? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????????? ?? ?? ????’? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?ℎ? ???? ????? ?? ?ℎ? ???????? ???ℎ?. ?? ??????????, ?? ???? ?????? ?ℎ?? ?ℎ? ??? ??????? ?? ?ℎ? ???ℎ? ?ℎ?? ???ℎ ??? ?????????? ???? ??????????. ?ℎ? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?ℎ? ????? ??????? ?? ?ℎ??????. ?ℎ? ??????? ?????? ? ??? ?? ?????. ?ℎ? ????????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ?ℎ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?ℎ??????. ?? ???? ?????? ?ℎ?? ?ℎ? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?ℎ? ???ℎ? ?? ?ℎ?? ℎ??????? ????? ?ℎ? ???????.”
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: ‘???? ç? ??????’ …[ 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 13:36
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 19:19
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 16:45
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 14:07
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 21, 2019 at 19:20
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 22:35
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 07:33
“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 09:14
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
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 13:41
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?
Dr Peter Lozo
March 21, 2019 at 19:23
This is the link to my recent submission:
https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/decision-imminent-in-sue-neillfrasers-application-to-appeal-murder-conviction/news-story/bd9809fb79dfb2f55c2a8a542d0fe4e1
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 23, 2019 at 12:05
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 16:23
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 17:14
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 15:49
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 18:54
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 09:56
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
“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 13:04
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 16:21
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.
Alan Arkle
April 13, 2019 at 09:03
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 18:10
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 13:26
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 17:20
“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 14:14
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 17:14
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 18:55
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 19:26
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 21:41
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 20:39
“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 18:33
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 22:19
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 14:59
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 23, 2019 at 18:44
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!”
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 24, 2019 at 15:43
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 24, 2019 at 21:07
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
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 25, 2019 at 12:45
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
Dr Peter Lozo
March 25, 2019 at 16:26
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.
William Boeder
March 25, 2019 at 23:12
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?
Dr Peter Lozo
March 26, 2019 at 10:31
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
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 26, 2019 at 11:02
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
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 27, 2019 at 10:37
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 15:48
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 20:32
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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
April 15, 2019 at 12:07
“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 17:32
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 20:01
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?
Dr Peter Lozo
April 17, 2019 at 22:34
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 17:59
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.
Dr Peter Lozo
April 18, 2019 at 10:00
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 16:48
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 20:15
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 20:49
Peter Lozo, your credibility has been shattered, all your prior opinionating is soon to be proven worthless.
Dr Peter Lozo
April 18, 2019 at 20:58
Your Comment is noted.
Lola Moth
April 18, 2019 at 17:06
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 19:58
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 21:01
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 22:33
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
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 23:36
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
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
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.
Dr Peter Lozo
April 18, 2019 at 19:12
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 01:06
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
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
….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter, the link alone should do it.
— Moderator
Peter Lozo
April 21, 2019 at 13:11
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 19:30
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
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 17:26
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 17:34
“ 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 23:09
Peter Lozo, your requested link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Z5nsyLDbE
Peter Lozo
April 21, 2019 at 13:16
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 19:16
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 20:06
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.
SN-F: Prosecutor today in court shows police claims to be false ... SOS ... Mayday ... Police in sinking dinghy ...---... ...---... ...---..
April 18, 2019 at 19:45
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 20:59
Confirmation Bias!
Dr Peter Lozo
April 18, 2019 at 23:13
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 13:13
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 19:52
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 00:29
“In a later comment, you referred to the suggestion that some say “… ?ℎ?? ?ℎ? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?ℎ? ????????? ??? ?ℎ? ???? ??????????…. ”
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 “?? ???????”.”
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?
Dr Peter Lozo
April 19, 2019 at 10:26
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.
Dr Peter Lozo
April 19, 2019 at 12:12
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?
Rosemary
April 19, 2019 at 12:54
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 14:28
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 14:48
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?
Peter Lozo
April 19, 2019 at 16:40
….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter, that image link response is not evident here.
An IT friend might easily explain it.
— Moderator
Dr Peter Lozo
April 19, 2019 at 21:05
….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 00:19
Will do. Thanks. I am puzzled.
Peter Lozo
April 20, 2019 at 17:15
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 18:34
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
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 01:54
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
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
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 16:11
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 16:35
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 17:31
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 18:02
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 05:33
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
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
Why did McLaren ignore the winch which had rope going to the skylite hatch? ... P. Lozo
April 19, 2019 at 17:32
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 21:08
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
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 13:06
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 15:51
“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 16:31
One final thing Lola, before I go out for the day:
You are pretty good in your reasoning!
Peter Lozo
April 22, 2019 at 20:38
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 08:36
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
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
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
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
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 14:22
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 17:03
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 20:04
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 20:43
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
“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 23:49
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.
William Boeder
April 22, 2019 at 20:01
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 21:11
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 21:44
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 21:56
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 09:16
Good try William, but I think you will find that the subspecies that you belong to has been described previously.
Clive Stott
April 23, 2019 at 00:13
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 08:31
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 17:17
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 18:25
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 18:30
Is it neuro-fuzzy or is it fuzzier than McLaren’s book?
Peter Lozo
April 23, 2019 at 08:41
What are SN-F supporters trying to get across? See Andrew Urban’s blog.
Peter Lozo
April 24, 2019 at 22:51
“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.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
April 23, 2019 at 23:24
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
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 13:15
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 17:01
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 18:44
(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 18:52
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 19:18
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 14:52
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
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 14:00
“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?