1

E 6 January 2026John Button’s Campaign for Truth & Accountability

62 YEARS SINCE INJUSTICE — AND THEY STILL REFUSE TO TELL THE TRUTH

Dear Friends and Supporters,Today, I release the first public record of my fight — not just to clear my name, but to expose the failure of our justice system. Over 62 years, every WA Premier and Attorney General has ignored mounting evidence. Now, I present their words — and those of the experts who challenged them.

A Timeline of Inaction & Political Avoidance

1963: My lawyer, Ken Hatfield QC, told Premier David Brand: “You know this lad's innocent.” Brand replied: “Yes, we all know — but it would be political suicide to release him.”1964: Hatfield warned me that if my High Court appeal was heard in WA, I’d lose. It was — and I did.1983: Premier Brian Burke promised to reopen my case — then refused, calling it “too old.”2002: I was exonerated — but no inquiry followed.2025: Attorney General said a review “would not achieve anything.”

Evidence They Ignored – In Their Own Words

Crash Expert: Bob Davey

Reference: Motor vehicle accident - John ButtonConsultant - Robert DaveyI have perused certain elements of the evidence in relation to the accidentthat led to the death of Rosemary Anderson in Stubbs Terrace, Nedlands.As a result, I wish to make the following observations in relation to theevidence pertaining to the actual collision.1. My primary concern is the lack of damage to the Simca allegedlyinvolved in the death of Rosemary. It is not in dispute that the Simcawas involved in a previous collision with another vehicle. Damage wascaused to the front left-hand fender and headlight. A Police vehicleexaminer carried out a mechanical fit of the two vehicles in order toestablish the precise nature of the damage caused. It should be noted that thisinitial collision formed a horizontal indentation across the front left-handside extending from the centre of the Simca towards left fender.All visible damage to this area of the Simca appears to be accountedfor. I can see no evidence of vertical damage as would be expected froma pedestrian impact.2. The lack of relevant damage to the Simca has never been properlyexplained. Rosemary suffered massive injuries to the pelvic area of herbody indicating a substantial impact yet there is no correspondingdamage to the Simca. I cannot believe that a Simca of this era would nothave sustained major damage in such a collision. The police appear tohave inferred that the collision occurred in the same vicinity as theoriginal damages, yet also infer that the dents on the right side of thebonnet was in some way relevant. If this were the case, Rosemary musthave had momentum from the driver's left towards the right. However, itis not in dispute that Rosemary was found in sand on the left-hand sideof the road. There is simply no evidence that the Simca has collidedwith a pedestrian. Obviously, the onus was on the police to prove thatthis vehicle was involved in the accident, and not for John Button toprove that it was not.

Former Chief Justice: Sir Francis Burt

In reply to a letter from Darryl Beamish’s sister (both Darryl and I were convicted of crimes committed by Eric Cooke)

18 December 1998

Very many thanks for your letter. I can assure you that you and your familyhave been constantly on my mind in recent times. Darryl's case shatteredthe belief which, at one time, I held that our judicial system, although it maymake mistakes along the way would in the end produce a just and true result.It was then, and it still is my personal and my firm belief that no onelooking at the undisputed objective facts with a fair mind could possiblycontinue to believe- and still less believe beyond reasonable doubt - thatDarryl had committed the crime of which he was convicted and yet not one ofthe three Supreme Court Judges, not one of the three or perhaps five - I cannotnow remember - High Court Judges and not one of the three Judges in the PrivyCouncil could be moved to say so.

Yours sincerelyFrances Burt

ABC Producer: Wendy Page (excerpts from her letter to the Premier.)

1st December, 1998Dear Premier,re: JOHN BUTTONABC TelevisionI was the Producer of "Dancing With Strangers" {a copy of whichI enclose), which went to air on "Australian Story" as a onehour Special on 29th October last. It is the story of EstelleBlackburn, author of "Broken Lives", and John Button who remainsconvicted of the hit/run killing of his girlfriend, RosemaryAnderson in 1963, even though Eric Cooke subsequently confessedto the crime.As you know, Blackburn's book has led to a high level ofcontroversy in Perth and to calls for a re-opening of Button'scase. I am writing to you now to add my support to those callsand to plead with you, in the interests of justice, to use yourpowers to facilitate a comprehensive review.Our normal judicial process has already failedJohn Button. What is now required is a "Judicial Inquiry underPrivilege" whereby a competent person can thoroughly andproperly examine all the evidence Blackburn has uncovered, andcan properly inquire into other allegations of police misconductwhich neither she, nor "Australian Story" were able to revealfor legal reasons.At Button's trial, both the Crown Prosecutor (now Sir) RonaldWilson and the judge spoke of the fact that the evidence againstButton was circumstantial only. (There wasn't even any forensicevidence to support the Crown's case.

It is interesting to note that police accepted and establishedthat Cooke committed every one of the crimes he claimed to havecommitted except two murders for which men were alreadyconvicted. One was John Button (Rosemary Anderson murder) andthe other was Darryl Beamish (Jillian Brewer murder). If Cookewas simply seeking notoriety, he surely would have claimed tohave committed many more crimes for which others were already injail. Why would he have chosen just those two murders ofAnderson and Brewer?The Beamish case went all theway to the Privy Council in the U.K. where (now Sir) FrancisBurt (later to become the Chief Justice and Governor of W.A.)fought vehemently for justice for Beamish, without success.Sir Francis Burt describes the Beamish case as "the worstexample of criminal injustice this country has ever seen".In 1966 Professor Peter Brett, Professor of Jurisprudence atMelbourne University, wrote that the Appeal Court Judges haderred at law in not allowing similar fact evidence to be heardin Beamish's appeal for a re-trial. (Brett did offer to writeabout Button's case at the time as well, but the Button familywere worried that it may jeopardise Button's chance of earlyparole so declined Brett's offer.) It follows that they alsoerred at law in not allowing similar fact evidence to be heardin Button's appeal for a re-trial.Professor Brett wrote that similar fact evidence is onlyinadmissible in the case of an accused. Button and Beamish werenot those accused of the "similar facts". Eric Cooke was theaccused. Sir Francis Burt agrees that those Judges erred.While researching my story about John Button, I spent a morningwith Sir Francis. He didn't know much about Button's case, buthe told me that Cooke's confession about the Jillian Brewermurder was so full of provable, factual detail which only themurderer could have known, that Cooke HAD to have been theperpetrator of the Brewer murder - just as Estelle Blackburn hasshown that Cooke's detailed confession about Rosemary Anderson'smurder is absolutely accurate, which would indicate that CookeHAD to have been her murderer too.Sir Francis Burt still recoils in horror when he explains theevents of the time and of how the criminal justice system failedhis client, Darryl Beamish. He told me that he very stronglybelieves that the prevailing view at the time was that publicfaith had to be maintained in the judicial process at any cost.Sir Francis also told me it was an absolute "watershed" in hiscareer and ultimately made him a much better judge than heotherwise may have been.As has been shown again and again, our criminal justice systemis not infallible. Sir Ronald Wilson (who successfullyprosecuted Button in 1963 and who later became a High CourtJudge) told me, on camera, that our adversarial system ofjustice is "seriously flawed" and that he has often beenconcerned about the jury system which he described as a "veryhaphazard medium of decision making".

The Turning Point: My Legal AI (LIA)

Today, I have LIA — a legal AI trained to analyse every fact, every file, and every failure. Each week, I’ll share LIA’s findings with you.Coming next:- The real forensic evidence- Suppressed witness statements- Why the legal system still won’t admit its mistake- What we are doing next — and how you can help

Thank you for reading — and for standing beside me.John ButtonExonerated. Not Silenced.

Sponsor. FIA-Labs.com 

Please check out this website.