Murderer launches foul tirade as he's handed one of SA's longest-ever sentences
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Who killed Sydney heiress Juanita Nielsen? ‘Mr Sin' points finger from the grave
Notorious Sydney crime figure Abe Saffron played his cards close to his chest. He didn't talk to the media, turning down countless requests for interviews, despite accusations he was involved in prostitution, drugs, bribery and corruption. The only time he did speak was at an impromptu press conference after he'd been named in the South Australian parliament as 'Mr Sin' – a major figure in Australian organised crime. It was a tag he hated and, along with the accusations against him, vehemently denied. At the 1983 inquest into the disappearance of Juanita Nielsen, he essentially said he knew nothing. But now, almost 20 years after his death, he has 'spoken from the grave' and named the man behind her murder: his one-time business associate James McCartney Anderson. It seems the confines of Parliament House, Canberra, loosened his tongue. It was there on a late Spring day in 1992 that he was ushered into a first-floor committee room for a secret meeting with the joint committee on the National Crime Authority. The committee's hearings had been sparked by an article in the Herald published in November 1990 that questioned why the NCA had used Anderson as an informant in a tax evasion case against Saffron but had turned a blind eye to evidence about his role in the murder of Nielsen. The explosive claims Saffron made that day have remained hidden behind federal parliamentary rules for the past 33 years, but the Herald believes that on the 50th anniversary of Nielsen's murder there is clear public interest in the evidence that Saffron, and then Anderson, gave before the committee being revealed. Under questioning by committee members – perhaps fascinated to be sharing a room with someone with such a scandalous reputation – Saffron zeroed in on Anderson and Victoria Street property developer, Frank Theeman. Saffron said Theeman had paid Anderson $25,000 to have Nielsen killed. And then, in the years that followed, Anderson blackmailed the developer for more money. Asked about Nielsen's activities, Saffron told the committee: 'I knew nothing of her existence until her disappearance. Nothing at all. 'I did not know that she had a newspaper even, until I read it in the paper.' Evidence at the 1983 Nielsen inquest pointed to Anderson ordering Eddie Trigg, the night manager of the Carousel Cabaret in Kings Cross, to lure Nielsen to the club, where she was killed. Saffron said that after her disappearance on July 4, he had quizzed Anderson about her visit to the Carousel. 'I said 'what's going on?' 'He said 'everything is in order. She came up just on normal business'.' Saffron told the committee he was 'an acquaintance' of developer Frank Theeman, having met him at the Hakoah Club in Bondi. Anderson, on the other hand, was 'very close with him'. Theeman's proposal to demolish historic terraces and build high-rise units in Victoria Street had been vigorously opposed by Nielsen. Saffron said that at one point Theeman had approached him, pleading for help. He wanted $25,000 in cash. Theeman had said: 'I have given a cheque to Jim Anderson for $25,000. It is important I get it back and I do not have the cash.' According to Saffron, Theeman had been 'quite agitated'. Saffron said he refused his friend's plea, saying he didn't have that sort of money lying about at home and adding: 'I do not want to get involved, Frank, in such a transaction.' Asked the purpose of the $25,000 payment to Jim Anderson, Saffron told the parliamentary committee: 'My personal opinion now is that it was to do with her disappearance. I think there is absolutely no doubt he was paid to get rid of Juanita Nielsen.' Saffron added that Jim Anderson was also involved in the 1973 kidnapping of Victoria Street resident and activist Arthur King. 'There is no doubt in my mind that he was involved in that.' King survived the harrowing three-day ordeal but immediately left the street. Asked if he believed Nielsen's death was intentional, Saffron said: 'In my mind, no doubt – no doubt at all that that was the intention. 'There was some talk among the talkative people in Kings Cross that Anderson had arranged this disappearance and that it was because of the problems that Theeman was experiencing in Kings Cross with his development. There was some basis for that thought.' Appearing at the same hearing, Saffron's solicitor, Peter Wise, said he told Saffron he could not imagine Frank Theeman wanting Nielsen deliberately killed. But Saffron had been definite and told him: 'No, he did not want her just out of the way or frightened. He wanted her killed.' Saffron said Theeman had complained to him that he was being blackmailed, saying: 'I have given him [Anderson] so much money.' Saffron replied: 'Well, it is your business if you have given him money, Frank. That is nothing to do with me.' Theeman had responded: 'Well, I cannot afford any problem about the Juanita Nielsen disappearance.' Saffron's evidence needs to be seen against his bitter falling-out with Anderson, who the National Crime Authority had used to mount a case of tax evasion against him. With Anderson giving evidence in the 1987 trial, Saffron was convicted of using two sets of books for his Kings Cross nightclubs and restaurants between 1969 and 1981 to defraud the Commonwealth of $1.5 million in taxes. While he strongly denied the case against him, he was sentenced to three years jail. In a moment of reflection, he shared his thoughts about his one-time business associate with the committee: 'It was a sad day that I ever met him.' On December 21, 1992, it was the turn of Anderson to give his side of the story. Perhaps somewhat theatrically, he was accompanied by a bodyguard as he entered federal parliament. Not surprisingly, he denied having anything to do with Nielsen's murder. He also said he was 'a little bit miffed' about reports 'that I tried to blackmail Frank Theeman because of the Juanita Nielsen incident'. 'I am categorically telling you that at no stage was I ever involved in anything to do with Juanita Nielsen. Allegations have been made and continue to be that I am the person that murdered her, but I somehow managed to manipulate and craft an alibi. I never needed an alibi because I had nothing to do with it.' He asserted that it was 'implausible' that Frank Theeman was behind the murder because 'the building was up, his apartment was up'. Members of the parliamentary committee reminded him that this was incorrect as the development was stalled and costing Theeman $3000 a day in interest payments. Anderson was adamant: 'I do not believe that Victoria Street had anything to do with Juanita Nielsen's disappearance or death, if she is dead. I would assume that she is dead, pretty confidently, after this length of time.' Anderson said that to his knowledge, Frank Theeman and Abe Saffron had no financial connections or business dealings in property. He then changed the focus of his testimony, alleging that a corrupt former NSW police officer, Fred Krahe, who had worked for Theeman, was Nielsen's killer because, implausibly, 'she had to have fallen over something that either he was directly involved in or he represented the people who were involved in it'. Anderson recalled that after Nielsen disappeared, he had a conversation with Saffron, who was 'as emotional as I have ever seen him'. Saffron had said: 'This is terrible. People are saying it is me.' Anderson said he replied, 'well, if it's not you, you've got nothing to worry about, have you?' Loading Anderson told the committee that relations between him and Saffron had turned sour in the late 1970s. Reflecting on the animosity that marked the breakdown, Anderson speculated to the committee that 'Abe Saffron hasn't got the balls to kill me, but he would have me killed. He then boasted: 'To be perfectly truthful, if I wanted to kill Abe Saffron, I could kill him. It sounds a bit cold-blooded and self-effacing to say I could have killed Abe Saffron any time I wanted. 'Normal people do not say that. So-called sensible people certainly would not say it in front of a committee like this. I would do it to him personally. The last thing he would see would be me smiling at him.'
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Who killed Sydney heiress Juanita Nielsen? ‘Mr Sin' points finger from the grave
Notorious Sydney crime figure Abe Saffron played his cards close to his chest. He didn't talk to the media, turning down countless requests for interviews, despite accusations he was involved in prostitution, drugs, bribery and corruption. The only time he did speak was at an impromptu press conference after he'd been named in the South Australian parliament as 'Mr Sin' – a major figure in Australian organised crime. It was a tag he hated and, along with the accusations against him, vehemently denied. At the 1983 inquest into the disappearance of Juanita Nielsen, he essentially said he knew nothing. But now, almost 20 years after his death, he has 'spoken from the grave' and named the man behind her murder: his one-time business associate James McCartney Anderson. It seems the confines of Parliament House, Canberra, loosened his tongue. It was there on a late Spring day in 1992 that he was ushered into a first-floor committee room for a secret meeting with the joint committee on the National Crime Authority. The committee's hearings had been sparked by an article in the Herald published in November 1990 that questioned why the NCA had used Anderson as an informant in a tax evasion case against Saffron but had turned a blind eye to evidence about his role in the murder of Nielsen. The explosive claims Saffron made that day have remained hidden behind federal parliamentary rules for the past 33 years, but the Herald believes that on the 50th anniversary of Nielsen's murder there is clear public interest in the evidence that Saffron, and then Anderson, gave before the committee being revealed. Under questioning by committee members – perhaps fascinated to be sharing a room with someone with such a scandalous reputation – Saffron zeroed in on Anderson and Victoria Street property developer, Frank Theeman. Saffron said Theeman had paid Anderson $25,000 to have Nielsen killed. And then, in the years that followed, Anderson blackmailed the developer for more money. Asked about Nielsen's activities, Saffron told the committee: 'I knew nothing of her existence until her disappearance. Nothing at all. 'I did not know that she had a newspaper even, until I read it in the paper.' Evidence at the 1983 Nielsen inquest pointed to Anderson ordering Eddie Trigg, the night manager of the Carousel Cabaret in Kings Cross, to lure Nielsen to the club, where she was killed. Saffron said that after her disappearance on July 4, he had quizzed Anderson about her visit to the Carousel. 'I said 'what's going on?' 'He said 'everything is in order. She came up just on normal business'.' Saffron told the committee he was 'an acquaintance' of developer Frank Theeman, having met him at the Hakoah Club in Bondi. Anderson, on the other hand, was 'very close with him'. Theeman's proposal to demolish historic terraces and build high-rise units in Victoria Street had been vigorously opposed by Nielsen. Saffron said that at one point Theeman had approached him, pleading for help. He wanted $25,000 in cash. Theeman had said: 'I have given a cheque to Jim Anderson for $25,000. It is important I get it back and I do not have the cash.' According to Saffron, Theeman had been 'quite agitated'. Saffron said he refused his friend's plea, saying he didn't have that sort of money lying about at home and adding: 'I do not want to get involved, Frank, in such a transaction.' Asked the purpose of the $25,000 payment to Jim Anderson, Saffron told the parliamentary committee: 'My personal opinion now is that it was to do with her disappearance. I think there is absolutely no doubt he was paid to get rid of Juanita Nielsen.' Saffron added that Jim Anderson was also involved in the 1973 kidnapping of Victoria Street resident and activist Arthur King. 'There is no doubt in my mind that he was involved in that.' King survived the harrowing three-day ordeal but immediately left the street. Asked if he believed Nielsen's death was intentional, Saffron said: 'In my mind, no doubt – no doubt at all that that was the intention. 'There was some talk among the talkative people in Kings Cross that Anderson had arranged this disappearance and that it was because of the problems that Theeman was experiencing in Kings Cross with his development. There was some basis for that thought.' Appearing at the same hearing, Saffron's solicitor, Peter Wise, said he told Saffron he could not imagine Frank Theeman wanting Nielsen deliberately killed. But Saffron had been definite and told him: 'No, he did not want her just out of the way or frightened. He wanted her killed.' Saffron said Theeman had complained to him that he was being blackmailed, saying: 'I have given him [Anderson] so much money.' Saffron replied: 'Well, it is your business if you have given him money, Frank. That is nothing to do with me.' Theeman had responded: 'Well, I cannot afford any problem about the Juanita Nielsen disappearance.' Saffron's evidence needs to be seen against his bitter falling-out with Anderson, who the National Crime Authority had used to mount a case of tax evasion against him. With Anderson giving evidence in the 1987 trial, Saffron was convicted of using two sets of books for his Kings Cross nightclubs and restaurants between 1969 and 1981 to defraud the Commonwealth of $1.5 million in taxes. While he strongly denied the case against him, he was sentenced to three years jail. In a moment of reflection, he shared his thoughts about his one-time business associate with the committee: 'It was a sad day that I ever met him.' On December 21, 1992, it was the turn of Anderson to give his side of the story. Perhaps somewhat theatrically, he was accompanied by a bodyguard as he entered federal parliament. Not surprisingly, he denied having anything to do with Nielsen's murder. He also said he was 'a little bit miffed' about reports 'that I tried to blackmail Frank Theeman because of the Juanita Nielsen incident'. 'I am categorically telling you that at no stage was I ever involved in anything to do with Juanita Nielsen. Allegations have been made and continue to be that I am the person that murdered her, but I somehow managed to manipulate and craft an alibi. I never needed an alibi because I had nothing to do with it.' He asserted that it was 'implausible' that Frank Theeman was behind the murder because 'the building was up, his apartment was up'. Members of the parliamentary committee reminded him that this was incorrect as the development was stalled and costing Theeman $3000 a day in interest payments. Anderson was adamant: 'I do not believe that Victoria Street had anything to do with Juanita Nielsen's disappearance or death, if she is dead. I would assume that she is dead, pretty confidently, after this length of time.' Anderson said that to his knowledge, Frank Theeman and Abe Saffron had no financial connections or business dealings in property. He then changed the focus of his testimony, alleging that a corrupt former NSW police officer, Fred Krahe, who had worked for Theeman, was Nielsen's killer because, implausibly, 'she had to have fallen over something that either he was directly involved in or he represented the people who were involved in it'. Anderson recalled that after Nielsen disappeared, he had a conversation with Saffron, who was 'as emotional as I have ever seen him'. Saffron had said: 'This is terrible. People are saying it is me.' Anderson said he replied, 'well, if it's not you, you've got nothing to worry about, have you?' Loading Anderson told the committee that relations between him and Saffron had turned sour in the late 1970s. Reflecting on the animosity that marked the breakdown, Anderson speculated to the committee that 'Abe Saffron hasn't got the balls to kill me, but he would have me killed. He then boasted: 'To be perfectly truthful, if I wanted to kill Abe Saffron, I could kill him. It sounds a bit cold-blooded and self-effacing to say I could have killed Abe Saffron any time I wanted. 'Normal people do not say that. So-called sensible people certainly would not say it in front of a committee like this. I would do it to him personally. The last thing he would see would be me smiling at him.'
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Lanna Hill: Absent jelly cups the canary in the coal mine for volunteering in schools
The jelly cups are gone from the school canteen. So are the juice pop tops and flavoured milks. Not because of sugar bans or budget cuts but because there aren't enough parent volunteers to serve them. It's a small change. But it says something bigger. Across schools, volunteer numbers are dropping. In Queensland, participation in school tuck shops has fallen by more than 11 per cent, with lack of time and cost-of-living pressures cited as the main barriers. South Australian schools are reporting canteen closures for the same reason. And nationally, the number of people participating in formal volunteering has dropped by nearly two million between 2019 and 2022. It's worth saying: not all P&Cs are in crisis. There are still many strong, well-run associations across WA doing extraordinary work. My kids are lucky — their school has a brilliant P&C and a tightly connected community. But even in the healthiest school ecosystems, the pressure is growing. The pool of people who have the time, head space or capacity to take on volunteer roles is shrinking fast. We're living in an era of extreme time poverty. Working parents, single parents, carers, shift workers — almost everyone is stretched. The hours that once went to school rosters or fundraising events are now consumed by paid work, commuting, side hustles, medical appointments, and simply trying to balance family life and your sanity. And yet, the need for parent engagement has never been greater. Today's kids are navigating a very different world to the one we grew up in. Kids today are more anxious, less physically active, and spend more time online than any previous generation. They're also spending less time with their parents. One recent Australian study found that many children now spend more hours each week on screens than they do interacting with their families. That statistic should give all of us pause. We know that strong school communities make a real difference — not just to academic results, but to confidence, behaviour, social development, and wellbeing. We know that when parents are engaged — even in small ways — kids notice. It creates a sense of cohesion, safety, and belonging. So how do we respond when that model is breaking down? We could start by rethinking what volunteering looks like in 2025. A lot of the systems we're still using — the weekday canteen rosters, or the mid-morning meetings — don't reflect how modern families actually live. I'm not saying this from the high ground. Like a lot of parents, I find it hard to carve out the time. But I also know how proud my kids are when they see me helping out at netball or turning up to their assemblies. It matters. There's also a bigger opportunity here for our State and Federal governments: imagine a family engagement campaign that linked healthy food, digital wellbeing, parent–child connection, and community volunteering — not as separate initiatives, but as a shared strategy. Not framed as guilt, but as civic design. Because when we make it easier for families to show up, we're not just helping schools. We're helping children feel more connected, more supported, more seen. I'm not saying we go back to the way things were. But if we still believe in the village, we need to start building a version that works for now — not just for the families who can make it to Tuesday morning canteen roster, but for the ones who can't. Maybe it starts with something as small as a jelly cup. Lanna Hill is the founder and director of Leverage Media Group
