Tasmanian Times


Letter to Elise Archer on justice …

President Dr Kristine Klugman and CEO Bill Rowlings ...

The Hon Elise Archer MP By email: elise.archer@parliament.tas.gov.au
Attorney-General, Minister for Justice
House of Assembly
PARLIAMENT HOUSE TAS 7009 Australia Day letter 2019

Dear Attorney-General

On behalf of Civil Liberties Australia, on this Australia Day I ask you to announce a Royal
Commission into the system of justice in Tasmania. In our view, the need for this is clearly
indicated by the saga of the Sue Neill-Fraser case, now 10 years old and still occupying the
earnest attention of the state.

We‘re aware that a Supreme Court case is still sitting, with finality of the court issues
involved likely before the end of 2019. We believe that, no matter what the outcome, there
will be grave uncertainty about the state of the law, policing, the prosecution office, the
judiciary and justice in Tasmania in general until all issues surround this case are aired
openly and transparently in a public inquiry. We note that no public inquiry has ever been
held into the legal/justice system in Tasmania: one is very much needed.

Announcing such an inquiry now – to be held in 2020 or 2021 – would be an excellent way
for the Tasmanian Government to be proactive over matters which concern all

With your extensive background and experience in the justice system, your legal
qualifications and your parliamentary experience, particularly as Speaker, you will be
aware of the major uncertainties that surround all aspects of this case from the outset.

New books and a TV series are about to reveal more worrying facts about what has
occurred behind the scenes.

We ask that you announce now that there will be an independent assessment and
evaluation of the Tasmanian legal/justice system, by a mainland judge or judges, to avoid
any suggestion that the outcome of the current legal case influenced your decision.

The Sue Neill-Fraser case is taking on the dimension of the Lindy Chamberlain case
nationally. But Chamberlain was in jail three years only: Neill-Fraser is in her 10th year
already. Like Chamberlain, only a public inquiry will finally resolve all issues.

You may be aware that Civil Liberties Australia was very influential in having the Liberal
state government introduce the “right to appeal” law, under which Sue Neill-Fraser is
appealing. We continue to lobby to have these provisions introduced in all states and
Civil Liberties Australia Inc. A04043

Box 7438 Fisher ACT 2611
Email: secretary[at]cla.asn.au
Assn No. 04043 Web: www.cla.asn.au

It is to the enormous credit of former AG Vanessa Goodwin that Tasmania
passed this law. By instigating the proposed inquiry, you will be continuing the very high
standards she set in the office of AG.

We suggest the inquiry be named the ‘Goodwin Royal Commission into Justice’ in her

Yours sincerely
Dr Kristine Klugman OAM

In her inaugural speech to Parliament, Dr Goodwin noted the deep cynicism towards
state politics in the community. “As someone whose career has, until now, primarily
been in aspects of justice, crime prevention and the law, I’m particularly keen to see
Tasmania return to being a place where trust is restored in Government decisionmaking,”
she said. “Without transparency and accountability, no government can be
truly legitimate.”

Cc: The Hon.Will Hodgman Premier By email: will.hodgman@parliament.tas.gov.au

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


  1. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 9, 2019 at 6:59 am

    Witness in Susan Neill-Fraser case accused of fabricating ‘compelling’ statement

    This is an extract from a recent news article on the cross-examination of Mr McLaren. I didn’t realise until I read this a short while ago that Mr McLaren suggested that Ms Vass be given $10,000 to say she was on the yacht.

    “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.

    Mr McLaren also agreed he drafted the lines that Ms Vass eventually signed as her statement.

    The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Daryl Coates, SC, accused Mr McLaren of “completely fabricating” Ms Vass’s statement.”

    See here for more details:


    It is a serious matter when a Director of Public Prosecution accuses a witness of “completely fabricating” another person’s statement. I wonder what the presiding Justice thought about that cross-examination.

    But my main concern about the investigative work that was conducted by the Victorian ex-detectives is their failure to realise that on the morning of 27th Jan 2009 there was a large winch handle in the winch of the main mast and that this winch on the main mast was only about 2 metres from the hatch where a dangling rope was found? Given that the State case was that Sue used a winch during the removal of the body from the saloon of the yacht one would have expected that Victorians would have better familiarised themselves with the crime scene. The mentioned winch handle is discussed in the Trial Transcript. It also stands out like a sore thumb in the news footage of the morning of 27th! So how did Victorian ex-detectives not notice this large winch handle in the photographs of the crime scene? Can we conclude that the Victorian team of investigators wasn’t interested in any evidence against Sue but was focused on finding evidence for the 2014 theory of burglary gone wrong? Is this an example of selectively filtering out any evidence that could be detrimental to the defence case? Is this an example of Tunnel Vision? Is this searching for the truth? Wow!

  2. Lola Moth

    February 2, 2019 at 6:33 pm

    It always bothers me when cases like that of the disappearance of Bob Chappell are widely speculated about by the general public.

    People are so quick to point the finger at who they think is the likely murderer .. even when there is no reported death of a victim. Even when there are so few facts known about what actually happened, people weave a story around them to make it fit with their favoured theory. They would rather believe the most convoluted story of someone who planned the crime meticulously and carried it out without a hitch and without being seen, because they don’t like the idea that they will never know what really happened. They can’t handle a mystery.

    The police also would rather invent scenarios and twist facts to fit with who they think should be punished for a crime they can’t prove was even committed. They want us to believe they unraveled a complicated plot that was expertly planned and executed by some master criminal, but they also want us to believe this mastermind was so stupid she didn’t plan a believable alibi before committing the crime.

    It is not just this case where this has happened. There are plenty of others out there. The Chamberlain case was a perverted, twisted fantasy that people preferred to believe rather than listen to the witnesses who were there at the time.

    The way we sensationalise a fairly simple tragedy into a monstrous evil crime is something that Australians should be ashamed of.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      February 6, 2019 at 9:10 pm

      Lola, … “The police also would rather invent scenarios and twist facts to fit with who they think should be punished for a crime they can’t prove was even committed. They want us to believe they unraveled a complicated plot that was expertly planned and executed by some master criminal, but they also want us to believe this mastermind was so stupid she didn’t plan a believable alibi before committing the crime.”

      As far as the SN-F case is concerned, it is my well informed and reasoned opinion that, whilst the police could have done a more thorough job, the police did a good enough job to solve the murder case where there was not a single direct witness to the crime. I can say the same thing about the other cases I studied – Henry Keogh, Gordon Wood, Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey (US cases). I should stress that Keogh and Wood were successful in having their convictions quashed on appeal.

      I have also studied the many online opinions by the supporters of each of the listed people, other than that of Mr Wood as he probably didn’t have an online support group. What I found is that in general, the public who jump on the Miscarriage of Justice bandwagon fail to correctly interpret non-trivial technical and scientific aspects of the case. I spent a lot of online time trying to show people that there is an alternate and more plausible way at looking at various bits of the case evidence.

      As for alibis: SN-F doesn’t appear to have been tech-savvy. My preliminary conclusion on this case, reached within the first few weeks in early 2015 after partly studying the trial transcript and TT comments, was that it was the ATM photo that tripped her because it started her to change her story about not being out at night. After that she just made it worse by giving several different versions to people about how she got from her home to the waterfront and then how she got back from the waterfront to her home.

      What is interesting is that when Sue signed her Stat Dec on 28th Jan, and for several weeks after that, she most probably wasn’t aware that on the Australia Day public holiday the Bunnings warehouse closed at 6pm rather than its usual time of 9pm or so.

      Sue may have been mechanically savvy to handle a horse farm and a large yacht, but I think that she wasn’t smart enough to invent a more plausible alibi and then stick to it.

      • Lola Moth

        February 7, 2019 at 9:10 am

        Peter, one of the problems I have with such cases is the evidence that is not allowed in court.

        I was once a witness for the Defence in a murder case in NSW. A man went to the home of a young couple and was shot dead by the husband just outside the home. The home contained a large amount of drugs which is what the victim intended to forcefully take from the couple when he went there. The victim assaulted the wife which led to the husband shooting the victim. The drugs alone would have seen the husband put away for a long time, so a deal was struck that the drugs charges would be dropped and no drugs would be mentioned in the murder trial.

        When I was in the witness box, every question put to me required the jury to be removed and my answer assessed before the jury could be brought back in. The jury only heard part of the story which meant there was no reason for the victim to have been at the home, for the wife to have been assaulted, and for the victim to have been shot.

        Court transcript are just the evidence the jury was allowed to hear. When transcripts seem disjointed and don’t flow properly it is usually because of matters that the jury was not allowed to hear. I have been a witness in the murder trials of over 40 people and the amount of evidence that is not permitted to be heard by the jury, in deals done between Prosecutors and the Defence, is staggering.

        Australia has no justice system. It has a court system, and that system condemns the innocent and frees the guilty. The worst thing about our court system is that it conceals the truth in order to secure convictions.

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          February 7, 2019 at 10:40 am

          Lola, your Comment is noted. However, I prefer to discuss the SN-F case. If you have an example of evidence in the SN-F case that wasn’t allowed in court and that could have helped the jury on their decision then please refer to it here. In general I don’t bother about legal technicalities. My interest is in how people interpret complex case evidence.

          • Lola Moth

            February 7, 2019 at 11:18 am

            Your comment is also noted. However, your interest in how people interpret complex case evidence depends on the legal technicalities you don’t bother about. If the evidence is not presented because of those technicalities, it is not able to be interpreted.

      • Chris

        March 10, 2019 at 4:07 am

        Did I read this correctly. Are you honestly saying that you studied the Sue Neill-Fraser case along with Henry Keogh, Gordon Wood, Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey, and you concluded all were guilty?

  3. John Wiseman

    February 2, 2019 at 1:35 pm

    Dr Peter Lozo …

    Thank you for your input to these TT Comment columns. You have my support in your logical arguments.

    With SN-F passing ten years behind bars, and less than 1,000 people on her Facebook support group, it is sad to see the posts on this forum claiming her request for justice is popular.

    Keep up your excellent arguments. You DO make sense!

    • Geraldine Allan

      February 2, 2019 at 2:58 pm

      John Wiseman, I think scrutiny of your qualitative and quantitative research re supporters is necessary.

      Being unsure if I am a member of the SN-F “Facebook support group”, whilst speculating I am, it seems that with your surveillance you know better than I if I am, or not.

      Nonetheless, it matters not re the numbers on the F/b “support group” page. I can only speak for myself as being one person who supports any efforts towards a fair trial for any accused person in Tasmania.

      I know I have at least 50 citizens who support me in my efforts working towards a proper and open examination of Tasmania’s justice system, and that includes, but is not limited, to the SN-F case. I could rally those citizens without too much effort. That being so, if, using your calculations, we take the “1,000 people” of your guesstimate, then the sum is self-explanatory. Add to the final figure those concerned persons nationwide who are silently observing the systemic manoeuvring shenanigans to avoid remedy or errors and wrongdoing.

      In the interests of your own credibility you might reassess your method, then retract the above illogical speculation, “claiming her request for justice is popular”.

      Ordinarily, genuinely fair-minded and concerned citizens do not limit their vision and get obsessively stuck on one or two particular, and at times questionable, issues. Those who apply serious attention and consideration to (i) ensuring proper justice happens and (ii) when and where it is possible to avoid further damage — are able to brain-broaden, thus seeing the bigger picture — that repetitively Tasmania’s justice system fails and the rule of law does not prevail. That is fact.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      February 2, 2019 at 3:09 pm

      Thankyou, John. I really appreciate your positive feedback.

      • William Boeder

        February 2, 2019 at 5:37 pm

        Dr Peter Lozo, your latest changed attitudinal remarks and responses to the ill-conducted unmentionable case of some 10 years ago is causing many people a great deal of confusion, which if not properly explained will drain what remains of your credibility in Tasmania.

        You continue to astound me with your chameleon like propensities.


        • Dr Peter Lozo

          February 2, 2019 at 6:38 pm

          Here is a new insight into the winching problem:

          One pulley reduces the effort by 1/2. Two pulleys arranged in a block and tackle will reduce the effort to 1/4. Three pulleys arranged in a block and tackle will reduce the effort to 1/8. That means a 3 pulley block and tackle will require only 1/8 of lifting weight to be applied by a person to lift 65 Kg. Now put into the loop a winch with a power ratio of 27:1 which reduces the 65 Kg weight to 8/27 = 0.3 Kg.

          The above is what I have just learned. If you look at the photo of ‘4 Winds’ it has two sets of 3 pulley blocks, one in each boom. I was told (by a young man who worked as a sail maker) that there would be a 3 pulley block and tackle on the main boom located approximately above the location of the hatch. He pointed out to me that the photo of Four Winds (the one with Bob in the picture) shows a block and tackle consisting of 3 pulleys (see the end of the mizzen boom). There would be a similar one on the other boom above the saloon.

          He further told me that he can set it up so that a 4 year old can lift a 65 kg body body!

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          February 6, 2019 at 5:57 pm

          William … Please do enjoy reading about what I consider to be the destruction of Sue’s defence case that Meaghan (and couple of others) boarded the yacht.


          Also see my above reply to John W, as well as my Comments at …


          Check out the news video footage of 27th January, 2009 …


          Can you see a big winch handle in the winch on the main mast – the mast on the front part of the yacht?

          Why do you think Mr McLaren ignored that winch handle on the main mast when he analysed the crime scene to then hypothesise that two men were involved in the crime? That winch handle is actually mentioned in the Trial Transcript. Was Mr McLaren objective in this case?

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      February 6, 2019 at 3:42 pm

      Hi John,

      Sue’s supporters were a formidable force on TT a few years ago, particularly for about a year or so after portions of the VPFSD report were posted by Barbara Etter on TT – about the same time in August 2014 when ’60 Minutes’ aired their program on the case.

      It is very clear to me from Mr McLaren’s cross-examination by the DPP over the last two days (and from McLaren’s book) that McLaren was convinced that Meaghan’s DNA was directly deposited by her. He had therefore worked hard to find confirmatory evidence that she was in the vicinity of the yacht and that she had boarded the yacht, rather than to pursue a search for the truth. It appears that he had engaged in some dodgy tactics, particularly with respect to a hair which he told Meaghan that it was confirmed to be hers – a lie. The young woman appears to have had a very troubled life and yet he, knowing this, still decided to put unnecessary pressure on her by lying to her. But forensic scientists weren’t so sure about whether the DNA was of primary or secondary origin.

      It is my opinion that Mr McLaren’s strong belief that Meaghan’s DNA was definitely of primary transfer led him to also ignore physical evidence that contradicted his hypothesis of what happened at the crime scene. For example: (i) he ignored that there was a winch handle in the winch on the main mast (Sue pointed out to detectives in 2009 that the handle shouldn’t have been there) and (ii) he ignored that Sue also pointed out to detectives in 2009 the two rope scuff marks in the woodwork of the entry to the cabin – fibres consistent with rope were found lodged in the woodwork.

      See the excellent summary of Mr McLaren’s cross-examination by the DPP, written in this online article:


      I think that the defence case has reached a crisis point! I also think that SN-F supporters who recently started calling for a Royal Commission (or an Independent Inquiry) have known that the defence case was going to fall apart with the cross-examination of Colin McLaren.

      Ps: I am not sure why someone complained and what the other reply to you was intending to achieve. There are a few SN-F supporters who complain and whinge but do not offer any useful analysis of the case evidence. That can be seen on FB, on TT, and on Andrew Urban’s blog.

      • Kate

        February 6, 2019 at 5:14 pm

        Peter, I think it should be noted that the Shadow-Attorney General, Ella Haddad, is yet to come out and comment on the proposal of a Royal Commission.

        As noted previously, Elise Archer was very quick to squash the idea.

        • Dr Peter Lozo

          February 6, 2019 at 6:27 pm

          Kate … Yes, sure. I would also like to hear what the opposition has to say.

          Perhaps the Attorney General was aware of what the defence case was (from the white paper that was presented to the Government back in May 2017). No wonder the rejection came through so surprisingly quickly.

          Mr McLaren mentioned in his book that they also presented the ‘white paper’ to Lara Giddings. Lara basically stated that she couldn’t do anything because the matter was before the Court.

          Ps: The book is excellent. It think that I will also purchase access to the online version so that I can quickly search for things of relevance to my own writing on the case. But I think that the book DOESN’T represents an objective attempt to present the most likely scenario of what happened.

  4. Dr Peter Lozo

    February 1, 2019 at 4:16 pm

    Further to my comment below on Closed Loop Winching, I have extra clarification on the below linked thread which was posted earlier today.


    Whilst the readers are attempting to understand the concept of Closed Loop Winching as outlined by me, and are possibly interested in assessing its plausibility and the evidence for my proposal, I like the reader to keep in mind that there were rope type scuff marks found at both points of possible exit of the body from the saloon – at the saloon hatch, and at the woodwork of the entry to the cabin.

    I am now aware, after just having read the relevant section of McLaren’s book, that he had either ignored, or was unaware of, rope type type scuff marks in the woodwork at the entry to the cabin.

  5. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 31, 2019 at 1:18 am

    Former police detectives with no apparent insight into a winching solution.

    “But McLaren and Bezzina point out that no wrench was ever found and say she was not strong enough to lift his body.”

    See the above sentence in a very recent news article:


    What the two former Victorian police detectives, as good as they may have been in their former career as police detectives, do not realise is that Sue did not have to lift the body directly but could have done it indirectly via a suitable arrangement of ropes and a winch. Most of the lifting could have been done by the mechanical power of the winch whose power ratio is significant (27:1). The only real issue is how to configure the ropes and the winch (or winches) given that the winch in question isn’t a self-tailing winch.

    I don’t have any experience with yachts and yacht winches, but (as a physicist) I am aware of what engineers call ‘Closed Loop Control Systems’. It is possible to configure a winch to work in a closed loop. A Closed Loop Winching arrangement, as it applies to this case, is a form of a closed loop where one end of the rope is run directly from the winch to the body whilst the other end of the rope is first run from the winch to a suitable fixed structure and then to the body. The two ends of the rope are then tied to the body such that the rope is taught. Then it becomes physically very easy for a single person to use the winch to lift the body from below the deck onto the deck, via the companionway, even if the winch isn’t self-tailing. Although the state of the ropes on Four Winds isn’t well known to me, I think that one rope was found dangling through the hatch in the ceiling of the saloon, and another rope was found going from the winch to the companionway. This (and the reported scrape marks) does suggest to me that a closed loop winching arrangement is the likely scenario that may have been used. Such an arrangement is particularly empowering when the perpetrator isn’t sufficiently strong to directly lift or pull a heavy load (eg an adult human body) but is sufficiently experienced with winches and ropes.

    But getting the body from the floor of the saloon onto the deck is only part of the problem. How does one then transfer the body from the deck onto the dinghy?

    If I was to suggest a reasonable solution that is physically easy for a physically weak person, I would suggest the use of another winch (the one next to the entrance to the cabin) to then lift the body close to the sail boom (the boom of the front sail hangs over the entrance to the cabin); tie the body to the boom; manoeuvre the sail boom over the water; lower the body close to the surface of the water, and then finally rest the body across the bow of the dinghy for an easy push overboard.

    Thus, as far as I am concerned, whether Sue had the physical strength or not is a non-issue. The issue is whether she had the technical know-how to configure the ropes and the winches in a manner that could physically empower her.

    PS: I should emphasise that in the above proposed closed loop winching arrangement, the two ends of the rope have to approach the load (the body) from opposite directions so as to maintain the rope in a constant state of tension during the winching process. So, if one end of the rope goes directly from the winch to the body, and the other end of the rope goes from the winch and across the top of the yacht to a hatch over the saloon and then through that hatch down to to the body, then the rope can maintain tension as long as it is started off in a taut state. Then as the body is pulled towards and up the companionway, the trailing end of the rope is also pulled. This will leave scrape marks at both ends – in the varnish of the saloon hatch and at the other end next to the entry to the cabin. Further scrape marks will be made if the second winch is then used to lift the body up towards the sail boom.

    • William Boeder

      January 31, 2019 at 8:29 am

      Dr Peter Lozo, despite your having been requested by the TT moderator who recommended you to desist with comments re the SN-F case and the speculative bias held within this former pet subject of yours, yet even in the above you are you are still failing to heed to that request.

      [William, acceptance or otherwise now depends on the nature of Dr Lozo’s Comment content — Moderator]

      Irrespective of your former considerations to that matter, this subject is not necessarily about murders claimed to be committed and and a reprieve later forthcoming as suggested by you, per with an example from each State of Australia.

      So a lateral shift to an other MoJ candidate case, I offer the following;

      A Tasmanian case bearing the hallmarks to a miscarriage of Justice in Tasmania.

      A public known fact that in Australia it is against the law to profit from an engagement in a criminal act. I introduce case matter that deals with a rather notorious case of the MoJ.
      This link is specific to a charge of Insider Trading from the perspective of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.


      The second link relates to the insufficiency of the penalty upon the accused as it relates to the criminal conviction and its meagre penalty issued from Tasmania’s Supreme Court by a member of Tasmania’s Supreme Court judiciary, a case that was heard in Tasmania.

      This 2nd reference is to the matter of the penalty issuing that was considered from the broad perspective of an inadequate penalty issuing claimed by a great many people across Australia.


      This case matter was not at all correctly addressed as regards the amount of gain achieved by the convicted person, was far in excess of the issued most minimalistic penalty fine, namely $50,000 dollars.

      As follows …

      “70 year old John Gay had avoided jail for the offence, and has instead been fined $50,000 by Justice David Porter.”

      “Gay was at the helm of the former timber giant in December 2009 when he sold 3.4 million of his shares.”

      “One month earlier he had seen a private in-house management report highlighting an expected drop in profits.”

      “Gunns’ share price plunged with the release of its half yearly results”.

      “Justice Porter told the court Gay had avoided a loss by selling the shares when he did, but it was impossible to tell how much he had benefited.”

      It is my contention that a ‘work for the dole’ young person, armed with a calculator, could calculate the gains per share at the then market value price prior to the report that Gunns Ltd had advised the ASX of a steep profit downgrade, then the resultant drop in Gunns Ltd share price in its having tumbled down to a significantly lower price, then calculate the difference to the fallen share price to the prior ASX report share price X 3.4 million.

      However this simple matter of primary school arithmetic was incalculable by the presiding Judge, Justice David Porter.

      One can soon re-examine the profit gained prior to the time and date of the offence as has been stated.

      Thus we can now contemplate the judicial favour extended towards the nowadays still influential convicted felon, John Eugene Gay.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        January 31, 2019 at 9:02 am

        I inquired with the Moderator prior to my submission!

  6. owen

    January 30, 2019 at 4:34 pm

    I support the call for a Royal Commission.

    Over 20 years ago I was in the office of a very senior politician who said to me that “Tasmania Police was too corrupt to do anything about.”

    That was then, and the culture would not have changed. I had issues and later more issues. They are the law, and they perjure and pervert justice at will to serve their own ends.

    I have had first hand experience of Tasmania Police and the Justice System.

    I was refused bail for missing a court appearance. I wasn’t a flight risk and I had my own business. I was held back from afternoon court to appear in front of a JP, and I had no legal representation. Police opposed bail and told lies.

    My life crashed from that point on. That night I had a panic attack, my first, but I controlled it.

    Much later I was arrested for busking in a public place and sent straight to maximum prison for breaking a restraining order.

    Much later still, I attended a seminar on Prison Reform in Salamanca, chaired by Greg Barns. Othat day I noticed firstly uniformed police activity in the area, and in the afternoon at a seminar break a man I recognised looked me in the eye as he walked out of the building. I recognised him because he had assaulted me by punching me on the side of my head as I was handcuffed and arrested and was being placed in the back of a patrol car.

    I was arrested for harassing police for the corruption in the police force which I had been exposed to.

    This afternoon I found a story I had written a few years ago …

    After laying low for a couple of weeks, and having the car prepared, I was on my way to freedom, and ‘to get a life’.

    I was unsure whether I would be prevented from leaving the state, but if the police had been able to apprehend me, they would have by then, but one can never be sure how they work. I know I was wanted for questioning by Hobart police, and their past performances have demonstrated they will arrest and charge somebody (me) purely on fictional verbal evidence, for which, if that happened to me again, I could be incarcerated for several years.


    BELIEVE ME I AM WITNESS TO THIS. And yes, 10 years after my lawyer found an arrest warrant had been issued for my attending the seminar, we found, on requesting the file, that it had disappeared.

  7. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 29, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    I urge people to read the comments on the following blog by Mr Andrew Urban:


    The particular set of comments I am referring to are by the following people:

    Ronald (Dixie) Lee, Robin Bowles, James P.

    Please note the contrast between the comments.

  8. Suzi Burge

    January 29, 2019 at 2:10 pm

    Tasmania must have a Royal Commission into the Tasmanian Judicial System, however it can’t be based on just one case, however significant, or even a shocker!

    There are many victims of the Tasmanian Judicial System, and I am one of them. I likened my experience to the Associate Judge and the Barrister for the other side having a ‘Beer over the Bar’! I seemed to not matter in the process at all. There certainly was no ‘Fair or Just’ in my matter.

    I watched as the AsJ asked the Barrister his opinion on how things should work? My opinion is that if the AsJ does not know how it should work, then put on your flip flops and go sun yourself on a tropical island, but do not continue to adjudicate on matters you clearly are not up to speed on.

    I understand this is off topic from the SNF case, but to make a Royal Commission work we need cases to show the inadequacies of the Tasmanian Judicial System.

    I went to Court to show cause as to why a bank should not strip me of my remaining 2 properties, namely my investment property and my family home. I had a ‘Maladministration in Lending’ determination by the Financial Ombudsman Service and felt that with well prepared documents and evidence I would be heard fairly and free from bias. What happened after that saw me sit in the Courtroom as a self-represented litigant completely stunned. How could a Court that is supposed to be fair and just be so biased against the other party?

    According to s146.2 of the Lands Title Act, I had the right to show cause. This was eroded when the AsJ ‘ordered’ me to start a new action if I wanted to set aside or vary the loan contract. A very good friend queried this, and sent me back to the Courts to make sure I had that right. I did. This was a ‘New Action’ that has never been heard in any Court. Obviously there is much more to this story but the finality for me was after an appearance in the ‘High Court’ in Melbourne to stop the bank from selling my property I was sent back to Tasmania to appeal. I lodged a Special Leave to Appeal and came before the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice put in writing that he banked with the very bank I was opposing, but he did not declare that he had previously worked for it. Nor did I know at this stage that the Barrister for the bank was ordained by this Chief Justice and once owned the Chambers that the Barrister works from! Did I stand a chance? Of course my application for a Special Leave to Appeal was denied, and horrifyingly.

    Recently I was pulling up the Lands Title Act s146.2 to send to someone who was being sent down the same path as I was sent. To my surprise s146.2 of the act had been removed.

    I have been vocal about the Legislation and the right to show cause.

    So in summary, when things aren’t going to plan in Tasmania – just change the law to suit.

    This won’t stop until those who should be held accountable for their actions are brought before those who will dig deep and demand answers.

    • William Boeder

      January 30, 2019 at 11:48 am

      Suzi Burge, please remember that I can verify the facts you speak of which occurred during the attack against you by the whole of the CBA Bank bullying beguilements and bluffing bravados.

      Your case went on to set in place a false precedent in the Australian Justice system. The CBA Bank had tweeked the law to see ensue from Tasmania’s Supreme Court the ongoing plot to defeat you.

      • Suzi Burge

        January 30, 2019 at 1:36 pm

        It is fair to say here William, that whilst the matter in relation to the wrongful sale of my properties and my subsequent fight to save them were heard in several courts in Australia, my actual action against the CBA has never been heard in any Court of Law.

        Why not? Because I allege that with the help of the Judicial System in Tasmania my matter was shut down. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

        Firstly the AsJ ‘ordered’ that I must start a new action if I wanted to set aside or vary the loan contracts. I allege firstly that this was a breach of the Lands Title Act s146.2 (since removed) and secondly by the stalling of that action in allowing the CBA to run a rotten and wrongful trial prior to the action the AsJ had ordered citing that I had signed the FOS determination and could not have a ‘second bite at the cherry’.

        They were indeed incorrect in their assumption that I could not have a ‘second bite at the cherry’ as it was FOS that had advised me to take legal action when they realised they had got it wrong! The FOS determination was never binding on me, only on the bank. This trial should never have been allowed. All evidence supplied to support my case was ignored.

        I attempted to have this trial dismissed and/or adjourned for medical reasons, with a Medical Letter supplied. The Judge presiding over this trial refused to either dismiss or adjourn. This Judge had previously been my solicitor, and he should have stepped down, anyway.

        As stated above, my Special Leave to Appeal hearing was also dismissed by the Chief Justice, the man who I believe is responsible for the removal of s146.2 from the Lands Title Act in October 2018.

        • Geraldine Allan

          January 30, 2019 at 1:51 pm

          Suzi — re your statement “As stated above, my Special Leave to Appeal hearing was also dismissed by the Chief Justice, the man who I believe is responsible for the removal of s146.2 from the Lands Title Act in October 2018”.

          Additionally, the same judge who presided over the SN-F Supreme Court trial which found the defendant “guilty”. He was not Chief Justice then.

  9. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 29, 2019 at 11:54 am

    Where to now?

    I was eager to find out what certain individuals thought about yesterday’s reply by the AG to CLA’s request for a Royal Commission. Where do you go to find what out what is going on in the minds of some people? Try Andrew Urban’s blog. This is the first paragraph of a blog he uploaded yesterday after the AG announced her reply to CLA’s request:

    “In the wake of the Tasmanian Government’s dismissal today to consider a Royal Commission as urged by Civil Liberties Australia, we respectfully put forward this draft proposal for public discussion to form the basis of such a Royal Commission or an Independent Commission of Inquiry into the murder conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser, to shine a light on matters of public concern surrounding the entirety of the case. We do not share the Tasmanian Government’s ‘full confidence’ in the Tasmanian justice system.”

    See more on here:


    Why can’t these people wait until the completion of the Court proceedings and the announcement of the decision?

    • William Boeder

      January 31, 2019 at 9:42 am

      Hello Geraldine … I recall all the relevant points relating to the case matter you refer to in the above. This is but another demonstration that MoJ had actively been moulding the proceedings in each of the cases so far presented.

      Peter Lozo, it is pleasing that you also seek a public inquiry into the integrity of justice delivered in Tasmania. Do please consider the forwarded case considerations of others, rather than your professed theme of murders et al.

      I have notice of other serious case matter evidences that endorse the inadequacy of the system of justice that prevails in this State, this set of separate additional evidences, concern a matter that can unseat the comfortable members of Tasmania’s legal practitioners that are part and parcel to the ‘Brotherhood’ notwithstanding there are a small number of bona fide legal practitioners that will not countenance the workings of Tasmania’s ‘Brotherhood’ of legal deceivers.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        January 31, 2019 at 2:27 pm

        William, I am very pleased that you are pleased with some parts of my comment. As for the rest of your broader concerns, it is more appropriate to direct that to another person or a professional body. CLA seems to have a much broader interest than I do. I am just a scientist who has no more interest in the justice system in my own home State of SA than in your home State of Tasmania. I am only qualified to research and comment on technical (non-legal), mechanical and scientific aspects of murder cases whose trial transcripts and other Court based documentation is available. But my main scientific research is actually in a different field altogether. What I do on TT is just a part-time hobby – I practice Edward DeBono’s idea of lateral thinking to help me with fresh approaches on the main scientific problem I am working on. I don’t have time, desire not expertise to venture into other areas.

  10. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 29, 2019 at 10:55 am

    Attorney-General Elise Archer rejected call for Royal Commission into the Tasmanian justice system in light of the Susan Neill-Fraser case


    That sure was the fastest response from the AG in the west. I was planning to write a more comprehensive letter to the AG than what CLA wrote because I have identified three central issues in the SN-F case whose review might help calm the Tasmanian community.

    But since the AG has so quickly dismissed the call for the Royal Commission, I will butt out.

  11. Geraldine Allan

    January 28, 2019 at 11:32 am

    There is, and there has been for decades, “grave uncertainty about the state of the law, policing, the prosecution office, the judiciary and justice in Tasmania in general until all issues surround this case are aired openly and transparently in a public inquiry. We note that no public inquiry has ever been held into the legal/justice system in Tasmania: one is very much needed. …”

    An open and proper examination of the entire justice system mentioned above by Dr Kristine Klugman OAM is long overdue.

    While a public inquiry is ignored/avoided, current modus operandi will continue, and Tasmanian citizens’ criticism and cynicism is justified.

    It frightens me.

    • Peter Lozo

      January 30, 2019 at 9:22 pm

      If there was a genuine cause for a Royal Commission then those who are calling for it shouldn’t have a need to omit, suppress or misinterpret evidence that contradicts their reason for a public inquiry.

      The Tasmanian Government knows what is going on, and is probably laughing at CLA and its Victorian friends who think they are on the right track.

  12. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 27, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    This is what CLA published on the first page of its most recent CLArion newsletter dated 01 Jan 2019:

    “People will gather on 26 January 2019 in Hobart’s Parliamentary Gardens to commemorate the anniversary of the disappearance over that night a decade ago of Bob Chappell from the yacht Four Winds, moored in nearby Sandy Bay.

    His wife, Sue Neill-Fraser has just passed her 10th Christmas in jail for murder despite there being no body, no murder weapon, no believable motive and nothing but a concocted detective’s theory. CLA believes she is innocent.

    Tasmanian police, the office of the director of public prosecutions and the Supreme Court of Tasmania have not been able yet to admit the errors of their ways and the core mistake of a
    jury inveigled by theatrical pseudoscience.”

    Now I know what CLA was thinking when it sent the above letter. CLA has a view that Sue is innocent and that she was wrongfully convicted because Tasmania Police, the ODPP and the Supreme Court had made errors.

    Wow, the complete justice system in Tasmania screwed up! Just imagine what the Attorney General and the Premier would think about CLA’s letter had CLA included the above in its letter, given how the Tasmanian Government treated Mr Richter’s 25 page paper in 2017 and what eventuated since then.

    My view is that CLA has an incorrect interpretation of a number of issues, and primarily because their understanding was shaped by a documentary, as well as the opinion of a few prominent barristers who were influenced by the same documentary. Here is what one of those barristers said in 2013:

    “There now appears to be evidence, even more than you’ll see on the film, that the dinghy near the yacht was not the dinghy of the yacht, and was not the dinghy associated with the accused. There is after all a considerable difference between a grey dinghy and a white dinghy. And there’s a lot of evidence about a grey dinghy. More than in this film.”

    But there is no evidence that the sighted dinghy was not the dinghy of the yacht. There is evidence that the white dinghy of the yacht was described by a number of people to be grey. It all depends on the viewing conditions – whether there was direct sunlight onto the white dinghy and whether the dinghy was in the shade of its yacht and whether there was sunlight reflected from water towards the observer’s eyes, etc.

    Have those of you who have seen the documentary (‘Shadow of Doubt’) heard this being talked about in the documentary? What pseudoscience has led some people to believe that a white object will always look white during daylight? If CLA gets to understand this basic issue then it will be in a better position to judge the case it wrote about in its letter to the Attorney General.



    Please let this be your last Comment on the SN-F case.

    — Moderator

    • Kate

      January 27, 2019 at 4:54 pm


      At the risk of being accused of starting another conspiracy theory, the so-called submission by CLA appears to be spurious.

      What it is actually saying is “She is probably guilty and we have confidence in the legal system.”!

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        January 27, 2019 at 7:40 pm

        Kathy, I was asked by the Moderator to let go of commenting on the SN-F case.

        As for CLA, it is quite serious and it is actually working towards a big vision for more reliable justice in the whole country. They listed some of the things in their letter.

        The grand vision is to convince the Australian Government to introduce a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

        I just happen to live in the city (Adelaide) where Australian Miscarriages of Justice (MoJ) movement, which appears to be led by Dr Bob Moles, has it MoJ Symposia. It needs to show that there is a sufficient number of MoJ cases in Australia in order for the Government to act. I think that CLA and Dr Moles can just about claim that each State and Territory, other than Tasmania, has a least one MoJ case (Millard in WA; Keogh in SA; Chamberlain in NT: Eastwood in NSW; Eastwood in ACT). Hence the intense focus on the Tasmanian case by the MoJ campaigners. I can’t recall what cases, if any, are considered by CLA to be MoJ cases in Victoria and Queensland.

        In conclusion: a lot of work is going towards the vision of establishing a CCRC in Australia.

    • William Boeder

      January 28, 2019 at 11:26 am

      Dr Peter Lozo, you speak of recommendations as if that word carries the same as having more substance than a directive or a command.
      I cite the 2018 review of Tasmania’s Guardianship Administation (commonly referred to as the GAB) the Late Attorney General Ms Vanesa Goodwin, called for the commencement of this review back in 2015, called for on the basis that may well have been due to the number of elderly abuse cases arising from the former era and reign of the GAB here in Tasmania going on for some 9-10 years, its then former President had sought her sudden departure from this State shortly thereafter, since that departure this same person had removed their self to relaunch that persons held bad attitudes over on the larger isle laying Direct North of this lttle isle of Tasmania.

      Now a member of the Vcat (in Victoria, now public knowledge) an entity that continues to ignore the elderly and financial abuse that proliferates unde the guise of both the Guardianship Administrators across Australia and each State’s Public Trustees.
      The review ended with a late 2018 report bearing some 140 recommendations, now, were any one of those recommendations be acted upon by the hierarchy of this State government business enterprise (GAB) that would be little other than a carbon copy of how each of all the Australian State’s Guardianship Administrative Boards have ignored reports even if they are conducted from a Federal government perspective, yet bearing the same old same ‘recommenations’ which one can predict beforehand that most all of the recommenfations will be ignored.

      So there you have it, a recommendation to each of these individual State Government Guardianship Authorities throughout Australia means nothing at all to their board directors nor upper-level mangement,
      nor were any of the mentioned 140 recommendations of that review ……re-termed as ‘directives’ ……which could have been sought…. to alter or to add to a State’s statutes…via a bill requesting an action to be passed by an uncaring set of legislators to become a new legislated law (or statute).
      That is the only means by which a great many government associated businesses, also State government authoratitive departments, are each able to ignore the whatsoever new recommendations, despite their relevance having thereby arisen, those fine sounding recommendations are all there is in the published review’s Final Report.

      Which of course leave the (recommendations) worthless, now are well able to be ignored or later dismissed.
      A classic example for you to make a comparison, will be the Final Report and its multiple recommendations that will likely issue as a result of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Australia’s Academic Crooksters engaged in the Financial Services Sector.

      So even if a huge series of recommendations have been considered then published in the Final Report by The Honourable The Commissioner, Kenneth Hynes QC AO that are established fact will be put forward and published, yet Bankers already know that recommendations can be tactfully deferred and or even just be later dismissed by each of their Corporate Financial Institution executive-board selves.

      We now await the final report….detailing its outcome (albeit per its restricted terms of reference)….to this much awaited Royal Commission….its concluding result.
      Do please understand that a recommendation only ever has the power of a ‘recommendation.’

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        January 28, 2019 at 12:38 pm

        William, unless the email to the Attorney General had an attachment detailing the reasons why CLA thinks that a Royal Commission is warranted then in my opinion the letter has no substance and won’t be treated seriously.

        But I am not against the Royal Commission into the Tasmanian justice system. My interest is actually in researching how various groups of people (cops, lawyers, Appeal Court judges, documentaties and current affair programs, and the general public) interpret evidence in complex circumstantial cases, and how that is represented in public forums.

        Each case I studied (Keogh, Wood, Neill-Fraser, and the US case of Steven Avery) has some non-trivial technical, mechanical or scientific aspect to the case that is generally misinterpreted by lay people, and even Appeal Court judges. The best example I can give you where, in my scientific opinion, Appeal Court judges misunderstood some scientific evidence, was the physics-based evidence in the Wood case which I wrote about on TT some time ago.

        I think that you can rest with a knowledge that I am NOT against a Royal Commission into the Tasmanian justice system in general, or a Royal Commission into a particular Tasmanian case.

        • Kate

          January 28, 2019 at 2:29 pm

          What are you suggesting Peter? That if they spun the argument around the other way, as in guilty people are walking free, the CLA would have a far greater chance of getting a Royal Commission or the like?

          Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!


          • Dr Peter Lozo

            January 28, 2019 at 5:13 pm

            I am suggesting that someone should put together a more comprehensive suggestion to the AG.

            Despite being South Australian, and despite my numerous opinions on a certain Tasmanian case, I decided that I should contribute to CLA’s request for a Royal Commission. I have decided to do that because I feel that there is considerable unrest in the Tasmanian community.

            I plan to outline three particular issues that I feel would benefit from a public inquiry. As I have written extensively about those issues previously I will not address them here.

    • Peter Lozo

      January 30, 2019 at 10:55 pm

      Peter, in response to your question, a submitted Comment is evaluated on its merits.

      — Moderator

  13. Terry

    January 26, 2019 at 3:07 pm

    When it comes to justice, Tasmania is a useless, pathetic state where a worker can be killed at work, and his employer, who apparently donates large sums of money to political parties, can get off scot free without any prosecution despite admitting at the Inquest that it was not following OH&S Laws? Where is the justice in that equation? There is none!

    The most shameful part is that it seems, by their appallingly unhelpful attitude, that many Tasmanian politicians are active participants in what can only be described as a sham system, known officially as ‘The Government.’

    These politicians know what the public expects, but it seems they don’t care.

    It seems to me that they do what their donors tell them to.

  14. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 26, 2019 at 2:55 pm

    The above article doesn’t explain what particular issues in the Susan Neill-Fraser case will benefit from a public inquiry but it is obvious to me that the intention is that the Susan Neill-Fraser case be the main focus of a public inquiry into the Tasmanian judicial system.

    I wonder how a public inquiry will resolve a certain big issue in the Susan Neill-Fraser case that cannot be resolved by individuals themselves.

    The issue I am referring to is whether a white dinghy can be perceived to be grey. This is a big issue in this case because if the ‘grey dinghy’ that was spotted at the portside of Four Winds was not Sue’s white dinghy that was perceived to be grey then there was a huge miscarriage of justice in this case. Unlike all other issues in this case, this particular issue can be resolved simply by those willing to go to their local beach to check if, and under what conditions, a white dinghy or a white boat on water will appear to them to be grey.

    • William Boeder

      January 26, 2019 at 10:11 pm

      Dr Peter Lozo, you are merely speculating that the Susan Neill-Fraser case is considered to be a causative action for a Public Inquiry into Tasmania’s Justice System.
      I would like to remind you that most all of your former SNF comments on this forum you have held an enormous bias against Tasmanian public opinion, then also the opinions of highly regarded Legal Counsel indivuals from the larger Island directly North of Tasmania.
      Your power of suggestion skills do you no favour, nor do your imprudent speculative comments that I, as a favour to yourself, have chosen to report back to yourself.

      I offer that fact evidence I have gained relating to other Tasmanian Supreme court cases, is kept privy to myself (gained by undertaking careful study when reading in depth…an enormous number of Court case transcripts that incorporate cases of higher Court jurisdiction than Tasmania’s Supreme Court….add to that the insider information I receive along with Right to Information revelations) there is indeed a compelling and necessary demand to initiate a Public Inquiry into Tasmania’s Justice System.

      May I offer to you, that in lieu of any substanitial contributing fact element contained within your generally speculative then dismissive comments, you are contributing to the damage already afflicted by yourself to your diminishing professional credibility.

      • Dr Peter Lozo

        January 26, 2019 at 11:12 pm

        Anyone who has had experience in reading recommendations, whether they be about legal, scientific, or other topics, knows that a valuable recommendation outlines the reason for the recommendation.

        This letter has no substance, and given that it is focused on the Susan Neill-Fraser’s case I don’t see why the Tasmanian Government will treat this letter any better than it treated Mr Richter’s 24 page ‘white paper’, and his calls for a Royal Commission into the case.

        Did CLA not pay attention to what happened to Mr Richter’s submission of May 2018? It should have been a lesson to anyone calling for a Royal Commission that a submission has to have substance in order for the Government to justify expenditure of significant amounts of public money.

  15. William Boeder

    January 26, 2019 at 2:54 pm

    It’s just a matter of time before the Attorney General will forget to reply to the letter from Dr Kristine Klugman. The letter we all have read in the above will likely be destined to enter the zone of non-existence.

    Remember please, truth and honesty are the enemies of our present State government.

    • Dr Peter Lozo

      January 26, 2019 at 6:27 pm

      Since the published version of the letter doesn’t explain which issues in the Susan Neill-Fraser would benefit from a public inquiry, nor does it explain why a public inquiry into the Tasmanian justice system, with a focus on the Susan Neill-Fraser case, would benefit the quality of the Tasmanian judicial system, I wouldn’t be surprised it this doesn’t lead to anything. Surely CLA would know how to prepare a well researched recommendation to the Tasmanian Government on the reasons for asking the Attorney General to initiate a public inquiry.

      I am at a loss as to why the above article hasn’t addressed the issues of the Susan Neill-Fraser case it thinks need to be considered, and why.

      I am aware of the various issues in the case but I concluded that those issues arose primarily because of significant misconceptions by Neill-Fraser’s supporters. One such issue is whether a white dinghy can be perceived to be grey.

  16. Simon Warriner

    January 26, 2019 at 1:14 pm

    I just did!

    Read the book. It is the argument .. lock, stock, and both smoking barrels.

  17. Dr Peter Lozo

    January 26, 2019 at 12:42 pm

    Comment deleted.

    This Comment of yours is totally off topic Peter, and you have already dealt with it, at great length, many times.

    Brevity is often a virtue, especially here.

    — Moderator

  18. Simon Warriner

    January 26, 2019 at 10:44 am

    A comprehensive understanding of the problems associated with Tasmania’s legal system and its operation, as being explored above, can be gained by reading Evan Whitton’s treatise on the history of English Law, “Our Corrupt Legal System“, which can be downloaded here:


    It is an easy read, and having read it I defy anyone else who reads it to explain how conducting a Royal Commission into Tasmania’s legal system will fix Tasmania’s problematic justice system.

    We would still be using a system which is unfit for the purpose of delivering justice based on truth, which is where the root cause of the problem lies.

    • Lyndall

      March 10, 2019 at 9:42 am

      Hi Simon,

      I’ve just discovered this post and I’ve downloaded “Our Corrupt Legal System”. I haven’t explored this subject at all before, so I’m about to learn from scratch.

      I’m of the opinion that like all good (open, transparent & accountable) governments Tasmania needs a much better integrity & anti-corruption commission. Total independence, wide jurisdiction, strong powers of investigation and public hearings for example should be standard. I think a strong and well-functioning integrity commission helps to maintain public trust in the system (in severe deficit at present) and contributes to a healthy democracy.

      I’d like to see a National Integrity & Anti-corruption Commission as well. I don’t think you can overdo scrutiny when it comes to looking for corruption and letting everyone know that this is active, effective & ongoing.

      Perhaps you’re not keen on a Royal Commission for the S N-F case mentioned herein; but in general you might agree that a much better Tasmanian IC would assist in the examination of government, its ministers and authorities if involved in a particular case. (For example, the fox eradication saga could do with a thorough re-examination in a number of aspects. I’m sure TTers can list quite a few more). I don’t see what other mechanisms there are as a watch-dog and apolitical champion for good governance, do you?

  19. Chris

    January 26, 2019 at 7:48 am

    Ah well, it is a very well known FACT the Wee Willy only answers emails if permitted by EB.
    Wish you lotsa luck!

    • Money Talks

      January 26, 2019 at 2:36 pm

      I can confirm emails are being ignored. This is unacceptable.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top