Transparency and accountabilty

THE JUSTICE FILE

Edition 1 | 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. (indicating that it would be too hard for them to go against their fellow judges, while accepting their hospitality) It was — and I did.

1983: Premier Brian Burke promised to reopen my case — then refused, calling it “too old, and people had forgotten”

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 Button, Consultant - Robert Davey. I have perused certain elements of the evidence in relation to the accident that led to the death of Rosemary Anderson in Stubbs Terrace, Nedlands. As a result, I wish to make the following observations in relation to the evidence pertaining to the actual collision.1. My primary concern is the lack of damage to the Simca allegedly involved in the death of Rosemary. It is not in dispute that the Simca was involved in a previous collision with another vehicle. Damage was caused to the front left-hand fender and headlight. A Police vehicle examiner carried out a mechanical fit of the two vehicles in order to establish the precise nature of the damage caused. It should be noted that this initial collision formed a horizontal indentation across the front left-hand side extending from the centre of the Simca towards the left fender. All visible damage to this area of the Simca appears to be accounted for. I can see no evidence of vertical damage, as would be expected from a pedestrian impact. 2. The lack of relevant damage to the Simca has never been properly explained. Rosemary suffered massive injuries to the pelvic area of her body, indicating a substantial impact, yet there is no corresponding damage to the Simca. I cannot believe that a Simca of this era would not have sustained major damage in such a collision. The police appear to have inferred that the collision occurred in the same vicinity as the original damage, yet also inferred that the dents on the right side of the bonnet were in some way relevant. If this were the case, Rosemary must have had momentum from the driver's left towards the right. However, it is not in dispute that Rosemary was found in sand on the left-hand side of the road. There is simply no evidence that the Simca has collided with a pedestrian. Obviously, the onus was on the police to prove that this vehicle was involved in the accident, and not for John Button to prove 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 family have been constantly on my mind in recent times. Darryl's case shattered the belief I once held that our judicial system, though it may make 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 one looking at the undisputed objective facts with a fair mind could possibly continue to believe- and still less believe beyond a reasonable doubt - thatDarryl had committed the crime of which he was convicted, and yet not one of the three Supreme Court Judges, not one of the five 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, 1998 Dear Premier, re: JOHN BUTTON ABC Television I was the Producer of "Dancing With Strangers" (a copy of which I enclose), which went to air on "Australian Story" as a one-hour special on 29th October last. It is the story of Estelle Blackburn, author of "Broken Lives", and John Button, who remains convicted of the hit/run killing of his girlfriend, Rosemary Anderson, in 1963, even though Eric Cooke subsequently confessed to the crime. As you know, Blackburn's book has generated significant controversy in Perth and prompted calls to reopen Button's case. I am writing to you now to add my support to those calls and to plead with you, in the interests of justice, to use your powers to facilitate a comprehensive review. Our normal judicial process has already failed John Button. What is now required is a "Judicial Inquiry under Privilege" whereby a competent person can thoroughly and properly examine all the evidence Blackburn has uncovered, and can properly inquire into other allegations of police misconduct which neither she nor "Australian Story" was able to reveal for legal reasons. At Button's trial, both the Crown Prosecutor (now Sir) Ronald Wilson and the judge spoke of the fact that the evidence against Button was circumstantial only. (There wasn't even any forensic evidence to support the Crown's case.)

It is interesting to note that police accepted and established that Cooke committed every one of the crimes he claimed to have committed, except two murders for which men were already convicted. One was John Button (Rosemary Anderson murder), and the other was Darryl Beamish (Jillian Brewer murder). If Cook was simply seeking notoriety, he surely would have claimed to have committed many more crimes for which others were already in jail. Why would he have chosen just those two murders ofAnderson and Brewer?The Beamish case went all the way to the Privy Council in the U.K., where (now Sir) Francis Burt (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 worst example of criminal injustice this country has ever seen". In 1966, Professor Peter Brett, Professor of Jurisprudence at Melbourne University, wrote that the Appeal Court Judges had erred at law in not allowing similar fact evidence to be heard in Beamish's appeal for a re-trial. (Brett did offer to write about Button's case at the time as well, but the Button family were worried that it might jeopardise Button's chance of early parole, so theydeclined Brett's offer.) It follows that they also erred at law in not allowing similar fact evidence to be heard in Button's appeal for a re-trial. Professor Brett wrote that similar fact evidence is only inadmissible in the case of an accused. Button and Beamish were not those accused of the "similar facts". Eric Cooke was the accused. Sir Francis Burt agrees that those Judges erred. While researching my story about John Button, I spent a morning with Sir Francis. He didn't know much about Button's case, but he told me that Cooke's confession about the Jillian Brewer murder was so full of provable, factual detail which only the murderer could have known, that Cooke HAD to have been the perpetrator of the Brewer murder - just as Estelle Blackburn has shown that Cooke's detailed confession about Rosemary Anderson's murder is absolutely accurate, which would indicate that Cooke HAD to have been her murderer too. Sir Francis Burt still recoils in horror when he explains the events of the time and of how the criminal justice system failed his client, Darryl Beamish. He told me that he very strongly believes that the prevailing view at the time was that public faith had to be maintained in the judicial process at any cost. Sir Francis also told me it was an absolute "watershed" in his career and ultimately made him a much better judge than he otherwise may have been. As has been shown repeatedly, our criminal justice system is not infallible. Sir Ronald Wilson (who successfully prosecuted Button in 1963 and who later became a High Court Judge) told me, on camera, that our adversarial system of justice is "seriously flawed" and that he has often been concerned about the jury system, which he described as a "very haphazard 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 Button Exonerated. Not Silenced.

Sponsor. FIA-Labs.com 

Please check out this website.