Alarmed lawyers and civil libertarians have joined the family of Tasmanian woman Susan Neill-Fraser in calling for an inquiry into her conviction for murder.
Neill-Fraser is serving 23 years for murdering her partner of 18 years, respected radiation physicist Bob Chappell, who disappeared from his yacht in Hobart on Australia Day 2009.
Mr Chappell's body has never been found and Neill-Fraser's conviction on circumstantial evidence has caused supporters to compare her to Lindy Chamberlain.
The case has ignited interest around the country as Neill-Fraser's family continue to protest her innocence.
Appeals in Tasmania and to the High Court have been knocked back and a coronial inquiry has now been requested by the family.
Former Tasmanian integrity commissioner Barbara Etter is backing the family's efforts and a new documentary Shadow of Doubt has widened that support with calls for an independent review.
Retired Associate Professor of Law Dr Robert Moles, who has written a book on Australian miscarriages of justice, says Neill-Fraser's conviction has no legal basis.
He says the accused's guilt must be the only rational explanation when evidence is circumstantial.
"In this case, there is no compelling evidence to show that Bob Chappell is dead, let alone murdered," he said in a statement from supporters of the family.
Barrister Robert Richter QC is also among those calling for a full judicial inquiry.
"There's no dingo but there's significant DNA and other evidentiary material to require answers," he said.
Chief executive of Civil Liberties Australia Bill Rowlings is among those to have signed an online petition to Tasmania's attorney-general and parliament.
The petition has so far garnered 35 signatures.
"Police filter the truth, forensic science is abused, the prosecutor invents a murder weapon and the judge agrees," Mr Rowlings said.
"A miscarriage of justice so blatant you won't believe it possible in 21st century Australia."
Tasmania's justice department was contacted for comment.
After the verdict in 2010, Detective-Inspector Peter Powell, who led the investigation, defended the handling of the case.
"She told police lies and gave police information that was later proven to be untrue - why would an innocent person do that?" he told The Mercury.
