Police respond to Meaghan Vass admission on 60 Minutes

Andrew L. Urban.

In the wake of Meaghan Vass admitting her presence at the murder of Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009, during her interview on 60 Minutes (Sunday, March 10, 2019) – contradicting the murder conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser – police have interviewed her, but no further action is foreseen.

The police continue to have full confidence in their investigations into the case.

The Advocate reported March 11, 2019:

Tasmania Police said it was aware of the contents of the 60 Minutes story. 

Assistant Commissioner Richard Cowling said police re-interviewed Ms Vass last week when the program’s promotional material suggested a new version of events.

“The version of events given by Ms Vass on 60 Minutes is contrary to her previous police interview, contrary to her sworn evidence in court and contrary to last week’s police interview,” Commander Cowling said.

In her interview on 60 Minutes, Vass had said she wouldn’t tell the police what she was revealing on air – but was prepared to say it under oath in court.

“We continue to have full confidence in both the original and current police investigators and reiterate that Sue Neill-Fraser stood trial and was convicted by a jury.” 

“Well of course it is true that most wrongful conviction cases involve people who have been convicted by a jury,” responds Dr Bob Moles, legal academic and author on miscarriages of justice.

“It is also true that sometimes juries get it wrong or are misinformed … The question here is not whether the Assistant Commissioner has confidence in the police investigation or in Ms Vass but whether her recent statement if known to the jury at the time of the trial would have influenced their verdict. If so the conviction must be overturned. The police must be expected to apply the correct legal test.”

There is ample history on convictions being found wrongful, Dr Moles points out. “It should be borne in mind that the UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission has identified 430 cases where those convicted by a jury subsequently had their convictions overturned.”

NEWSFLASH: When requested earlier today, Tasmania Police have declined to provide further particulars about their latest interview with Vass,  which they claim “is contrary to” her statements on 60 Minutes.

This entry was posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Police respond to Meaghan Vass admission on 60 Minutes

  1. RUSSELL ASHBY says:

    Why did Sue have to lie about whereabouts and her jacket and various other times through the investigation? What did she have to hide, for if it wasn’t for the lies we wouldn’t be here today. Just a thought, because not once has this Question been asked or mentioned during any of these latest TV series of events.

    • Stephen says:

      Her daughter suggested she was interviewed after she was given Valium to calm herself down. She didn’t lie about the jacket, she didn’t know it was on the boat.

  2. Andy says:

    I so wish this site could upload pics as I’d put some things to rest in seconds regarding whether they coerced people or talked to cop friends.

  3. Kerry says:

    Can the Legals in this case please get their act together and stop trying to thwart justice by their continually sticking to what the jury’s verdict was .The jury were fed fantasy stories e.g. the ” Phantom ” wrench Sue bludgeoned Bob Chappell with and the DNA present from Meaghan Vass dismissed without investigation and the list of dim wit so called legal and police investigations go on ….Please I lived in Tassie for 3 years enough to observe that alot of the locals in general think differently than shall we say it …Mainlanders . Please hand the case over outside of prejudiced Tasmania and give the poor woman a chance to be exonerated and freed …We ain’t living in convict times anymore Tassie Govt …Wake up ..suck it in and acknowledge you made dreadful rather stupid errors and conducted sloppy investigations although displaying a wonderful imagination and story telling abilities . Admit you made mistakes soon before you make yourself look absolute incompetentent fool’s because you ain’t far off it now ..Forget your pride this woman’s constitutional right for freedom is at stake .

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Kerry, regrettably, annoyingly, frustratingly — it doesn’t work like that. The system goes to the bunker, damage control strategy meetings occur — and the rest is history.

      As for the Crown (obligatory) acting as “the Model Litigant”, forget that too. Rhetoric, more rhetoric and most rhetoric.

      When I read your wise (yet naïve advice), “Admit you made mistakes soon before you make yourself look absolute incompetentent fool’s because you ain’t far off it now .. Forget your pride this woman’s constitutional right for freedom is at stake”, I almost had to reach for the vomit bucket. As if … or I wish!

  4. MM says:

    In fact, here’s the entire list of the most common causes of wrongful convictions. TASpol left no stone unturned lol


  5. MM says:

    Meaghan’s conflicting statements described by a confessions evidence scientist

    • Jenny says:

      Why do people admit to crimes they didn’t commit?

      “Of all the convicted people who have been exonerated by DNA testing, almost 30 percent confessed to crimes they didn’t commit, according to the nonprofit legal rights group The Innocence Project.

      What’s behind these false confessions? False confessions expert Saul Kassin, PhD, discussed what we know about that behavior at a congressional briefing hosted on April 29 by APA’s Science Government Relations Office.

      The psychology behind false confessions “is more difficult to comprehend than suicide,” said Kassin, a distinguished professor of psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Not having a similar experience themselves, [people don’t] fundamentally understand that they can be broken into doing things they would never dream of doing.”

      His research helps to explain why people implicate themselves. He’s found, for example, that vulnerable suspects, including teenagers, people with intellectual impairments and those with mental illness, are more likely to make false confessions, especially if they are under pressure from interrogators. Police are permitted to lie about evidence and imply promises and threats through subtle but lawful tactics.”


      • MM says:

        Egg Zachary! The website I got the video from lists 7 ways that prosecutors prevent wrongful convictions… All of which TAS DPP failed! They got NOTHING right from the get-go!

        • Jenny says:

          Do you now believe that people do confess to crimes they did not commit?

          Dr Kassin (the same person who is on that video you linked) gives a number of reasons why people confess to a crime they did not commit.

          Isn’t Meaghan the type that fits the vulnerable category who would confess for the future prospect of a potential financial reward because she is a drug addict, is homeless, and is poor.

          • CB says:

            Jenny, the reason we know so much about false confessions is due to DNA evidence. We know in some cases that confessions are false because they do not match the DNA evidence. Meaghan Vass has told two stories, one of which matches the DNA evidence. It is staring you in the face.

          • MM says:

            Absolutely! I believe the first statement she gave in court saying she was not on the yacht was coerced by the police. The presence of her DNA proved that, in my mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

            I also believe the reason she cooperated with police is because, if Sue could be convicted on NO evidence, then Maeghan believed she would undoubtedly be convicted on DNA evidence. Life in prison is far more threatening motivator than a finite wad of cash!

            The reason I agreed with you is because what you wrote was applicable to Sue and Meaghan… if you’re reading it objectively (ie without the tunnel vision).

  6. tony says:

    there is one simple fact the dna evidence of Megan Vas being on the yacht was not submitted to the the jury that alone is enough to overturn the verdict due to the incompetence of the police and the dpp who only wanted a quick conviction an example a chap named beamish in WA was set up by the cops for murder he was convicted and years down the track overturned on appeal and guess what not long after that they found that they had a set of finger prints of the real culprit, who was promptly arrested I believe that 2 men were named why are they not being investigated? the 2 cases seem very similar in both cases the cops were not doing their job incompetence or corruption ? take your pick

  7. Andy says:

    So Meaghan gets stalked by plain clothes detectives in an unmarked car at a bus stop… Claiming they have a Warrent for her arrest for fail to appear… A charge that she showed up in court for and her name wasn’t read out… She was told she didn’t have to even go… So in the car her bag is rifled through and they find one measly bud of marijuana and take her to glenorchy where those cops hand her to good ol Damian George who got her to recant her last statement…. She says no comment no comment and no doubt some expletives and is bailed but has to sign in weekly?
    What a load of shit…. People can do armed robbery be bailed and breach it again and then they sign in but over one bud….
    Cmon TAS Pol you are looking desperate.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Andy, did this chain of events occur just last week after the 60 Minutes promo was shown? Or does it relate to matters months ago?
      If it was last week, … well I’ll wait for your reply before I react, or is that overreact?

      • Andy says:

        Tas pol were informed of sixty mins story and asked to comment on Thurs which they declined. Meaghan got nabbed on Friday morning and it aired on that Sunday.

        • Jenny says:

          Andy, Are you also Andrea Brown who comments on Andrew’s blog?

        • Geraldine Allan says:

          That’s not coincidence! What was reason for ‘nabbing’ her, to use your terminology. Was she ambushed, and thus unprepared? I hope not, yet I fear so.

          • Andy says:

            Yes I am Andrea brown and Andy and whatever nasty names karen called me. Though everything I say is true.
            U marked car plain clothes cops parked over from where she was staying… Coincidence? Not in my book

    • MM says:

      TBH, I was expecting Meaghan to be arrested when the lawyer who witnesses her signature was arrested. If everyone else involved was arrested for ‘pervert the course of justice’ in obtaining a false statement, then why wasn’t the person who made the alleged false statement?

      Why did they have to stalk her and bust her for an amount of weed that pales to insignificance when compared to what she’d have been prescribed as a medicinal dose for PTSD?

      Everytime the police make a move they just make themselves look more like the ones who are perverting justice. It’s like they’re taunting the public with their perceived immunity.

  8. marc says:

    Frankly I have read of many cases across australia where the police have been found to be seriously incompetent (or worse corrupt) in their investigations. It sounds hard to believe, but that has been the case. In the case of Sue-neill Fraser, it is very apparent that the police ignored other evidence that steered their case away from Fraser. The matter of the DNA on the boat deck found to be from Vass, was explained away by the police as being “incidental transference”, meaning the cops want us to believe that some cop stood on some DNA deposit from Vass somewhere on land and brought it onto the boat on his/her shoe sole. ( I’m surprised they didnt say it was in bird shit that was dropped onto the boat by a seagul- that would have been more feasible) What the cops didnt tell us however, but came out later was that the DNA “sample” was the size of a dinner plate and was infact vomit- from Vass- on the boat deck. The other highly suspicious fact was that the forensics surrounding this DNA sample and the rag that was used to clean it up went missing from the official forensics log presented to the court, yet WAS noted in the handwritten notes of the initial forensic discovery. I cant believe her legal team didnt follow up on some of the things exposed in the private investigation done by the journalist and ex detective. This case shows extremely suspicious police behaviour and a RC is definitely warranted if only to expose the sheer incompentency of the police investigation. The police continued to maintain that Fraser killed Chappel with a wrench, yet that was entirely complete speculation that they presented as fact. Of course Fraser didnt help herself at all by making contradictory statements as to where she was and where she went that night. However, did anybody consider she may have some mental issues happening and have her assessed ? It would seem if Fraser said nothing at all and maintained her right to complete silence, the police would have had no case.

  9. nola scheele says:

    I want to know WHY Tasmanian’s were not allowed to view anything about this case ??
    When I was telling my friends in Tasmania about all this they too wanted answers why it was seen everywhere but not allowed for them to see.

    I don’t think we will be surprised at what Justice Brett hands down.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Nole, there were legal reasons for the caution. They relate to the matters currently before Supreme Court of Tas; better to err on side of caution.

  10. Brian Johnston says:

    The police have reinterviewed Meghan Vass and they said,
    “We continue to have full confidence in both the original and current police investigators and reiterate that Sue Neill-Fraser stood trial and was convicted by a jury.” What a cop out. Blame the jury. They fed the jury.
    Once again the police investigate themselves.
    They could have said, we have full confidence in our own ineptness.
    The police should not be investigating or interviewing people any further. The case should be taken from the police and given to an independent body.
    I am astonished the police can still claim Sue is guilty especially now we know the DNA is the size of a dinner plate and consisted of Vass’ vomit.
    Vass and through other statements has told us who murdered Bob and the police tell us that the witness Vass is wrong. She was there for God’s sake.
    I am now becoming concerned that the police are sticking to their story. They have become emboldened. Do they know something. Surely the judge has to support Sue or kick the matter upstairs to a three judge panel, surely.
    I am worried.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Brian, Brett J, “the judge”, can and must only base his decision to grant or not grant leave for another appeal, on the evidence that has been provided through the current application hearings witness-box.

  11. Geraldine Allan says:

    Being time-poor, I’ve been unable to comment on numerous posts of late. Certainly no disinterest. On the contrary, frustration at my own lack of contributions.

    For now, I will refer to the 4th September 2017 Tas Pol Principal Legal officer’s (Mark Miller) letter to Simmons Wolfhagen, who were acting for Meaghan Vass. As I am unable to attach to this post, if the page moderator could post it, I believe it may speak for itself. I will forward it privately.

    • Jenny says:

      What about it? Meaghan’s mother informed the cops that Meaghan was coerced into signing a false statement. Meaghan’s mother has a friend who is a police detective who used to babysit Meaghan.

      The police then wanted to find out from Meaghan whether it is true that she was coerced. You know the rest because Meaghan withdrew that statement before her appearance in the court later in the year and saved herself from being charged.

      Maybe you didn’t know that Meaghan’s mother confirmed that Meaghan was coerced into signing that statement in 2017.

      • MM says:

        Was Meaghan’s mother or her detective friend present when the statement was signed in front of the lawyer?

        The Facebook link you posted indicates Meaghan’s mother doesn’t care much about her – or at least, that is what Meaghan has posted as her own opinion. So I very much doubt they were looking out for Meaghan.

        Maybe it hasn’t occurred to you that the mother’s detective friend has a vested interest in protecting TASpol reputation and is manipulating the mother?

        • Andy says:

          Manipulating her mother? Meaghan was stressed out not knowing what to do… Her mums answer… Stack on a turn and you won’t be a credible witness. Oh n the cop friend Robyn Heinz. I’m over not saying who and what… So there…. Robyn if you read this… Please explain

          • MM says:

            My last paragraph was posed as a question, not a statement. Just another possibility in the realm of possibilities that make logical sense.

            Unlike the fantastical story cooked up by the DPP

      • Geraldine Allan says:

        Maybe I did know that, and chose to afford it the credence it attracts, in the hierarchy of reliable documentation, including the letter to which I above refer.

        • MM says:

          I’m keen to see it Geraldine – if it’s not going to harm Sue’s appeal and has already been exhausted in the courts, of course. I think that is far more important than our own curiosity and I’m prepared to wait.

          • Andy says:

            I have telephone communication betwn Meaghan and her mum re court… Not very motherly.

          • Geraldine Allan says:

            MM do you mean you are keen to see the letter to which I refer?
            It is out there in the various discussion groups. I’m unable to attach it here, or I would

        • MM says:

          Yes, the letter to which you refer. I’m unaware of any other forums but did a google search on those two names and nothing came up.

          • Geraldine Allan says:

            MM — If you ask the moderator for my email, then send me a request, I can & will send it to you.

  12. michael mullins says:

    If the Azaria case had occurred in Tasmania, there would have been no official way of dusagreeing with the jury verdict. Even if as a private citizen you could look at the evidence and see that the chances of Lindy doing it was less that 10^(-60).

  13. michael mullins says:

    In Tassie there’s no mechanism for officially disagreeing with a jury verdict.

    But anyone with integrity could say “There’s no mechanism for me to officially disagree with the jury verdict. But as a private citizen I can disagree with the jury verdict.”

  14. Diane Kemp says:

    Why are the authorities so determined not to hold an independent inquiry with this case? This appears to be a very clear cut case of wrongful verdict but it was based on what was presented to the court and jury and what was deliberately left out or evidence that went missing. The police investigation started with a belief that Sue was guilty then built the case around that – it has shaken my belief that if you are innocent you don’t have to worry!!!!
    My hope is that Sue is released and this case is held up as one where investigation methods were seriously flawed.

    • MM says:

      Because of the current Royal Commission into judicial corruption is my guess. It’s a fragile house of cards… a single admission or omission will put the whole State under the spotlight.

      Tasmania is a delicate situation. Martin Bryant was not given a fair trial by public demand. Bryant’s lawyer reported almost daily how he had mentally worked over his client to plead guilty so as to avoid trial.

      If Sue should win an overturned conviction on the basis of even the slightest hint of corruption – the Bryant case will follow because there are still victims and victim’s families who are not satisfied he was the shooter or that their loved ones might have escaped if the safety codes of the Broad Arrow Cafe were up to spec.

      • MM says:

        Hint hint… Bryant’s first lawyer was David Gunson. Gunson was stood down and replaced by Avery for the socially unacceptable act of allowing Bryant to plead not guilty. Gunson later represented Avery who was charged with stealing from clients. The argument presented by Gunson was that representing Bryant turned Avery into a thief.

  15. DB says:

    Something must be said of the fact that she only ever states that she was not on the yacht when seemingly pressured in the presence of police but when she is able to get away from them she openly states she was in fact there. It could be another police standover and pressure tactic. Who’s to say until everyone is given free reign to speak the truth and it should be at a new appeal where it can all be reviewed. I generally think the tassie police and people in power are shitting themselves and are afraid they will look more stupid than they do now.

    • Jenny says:

      Who is likely to pressure her to lie: the police or the bikie boyfriend? Have you seen the pressure her boyfriend was putting on her in Episode 6? She wanted to leave the interview room where Colin McLaren was but her boyfriend pressured her to stay and talk. She got pissed off and left the room and the building.

      Meaghan does have a female detective friend in the family who baby set her. Meaghan therefore knows that she can get in a lot of trouble if she lies to the police and in the court.

      Have a look at this Facebook post and ask yourself who is a threat to her safety?


      • Jo says:

        What possible motive would the bikie boyfriend have to encourage Meaghan to lie?

        I also had a completely different view of things. I thought the boyfriend was quite patient with her and trying to calm her down and support her in her best interests. He repeatedly said she’d feel better if she spoke and expressed concern for her. She was absolutely flying off the handle and nobody responded to her in kind; at worst there was a bit of understandable frustration.

      • Andy says:

        He is my best mate and has never been her boyfriend. Another thing karen said that Colin ran with. Never asked. She wasn’t pressured by him and never has been

      • Aldo says:

        Jenny your comment is spot on. There’s little doubt in my mind that her bikie boyfriend was manipulating her for notoriety and the potential for financial gain. If there’s one thing i’ve gleaned from reading the comments on this site it’s that the vast majority are convinced that Vass is telling the truth ie. that she witnessed the murder and Susan Neill-Fraser is therefore innocent and no amount of other evidence pointing to SNF’s involvement will change their minds.

    • Andy says:

      Bullseye, I’m glad someone else is seeing what is actually happening

      • andrew says:

        As Mieneke Haynes says in this thread, “I was in court when a photo was shown of Sue’s dinghy, after it had been sprayed with luminol. Large areas of the inside of the dinghy were glowing, this was a positive reaction to luminol. We all thought there had been a blood bath. If the DPP thought there was no blood in the dinghy, why did he show that photograph in court?”

        • MM says:

          Sue’s daughter said the same thing in the 2014 TV interview. She saw the photo during the trial and thought it looked like a blood bath too. That was the intention of showing a photograph that contained no evidence

  16. Jo says:

    If Meaghan Vass has expressed her fears of the police, is she being given independent legal advice about that or the opportunity to be questioned by police other than those in Tasmania? If a person has fears like that, regardless of whether the police themselves hold them in any credence, there must be other options available for a person to provide their evidence. The job of the police is not to control the investigation how they see fit or protect their own opinion of events but to figure out what happened impartially and dispassionately. They should view ensuring the information is accurate as the most important thing. They are public servants, not public masters.

    What happened to the affidavit that was mentioned on 60 Minutes? Has she retracted that? Have police examined it?

    I am also a bit baffled as to why, if Meaghan called out somehow to an officer during the Supreme Court hearing, this wasn’t addressed one way or another.

    It stands to reason that when there are credible and significant questions about an investigation done by police that may have resulted in a wrongful conviction that any subsequent investigating and interviewing should be done by other police completely independent of the original ones. Tasmania is a small place. What would be the problem with having Meaghan Vass interviewed interstate by Melbourne police?

    • andy says:

      If you can try and get help then itd be much appreciated as we at the moment are between a rock and a hard place with trust issues. lawyers police, which ones are ok and which ones arent. its a terrible spot for her to be in at present. Ive spent hour after hour on the phone to get nowhere

  17. L.B. says:

    Susan Neill -Fraser was convicted on the information the jury had to work with.
    If Tasmanian Police have no doubts or concerns about their investigations and conduct does that mean that Robert Richter QC (Vic), Chester Porter QC (NSW),Tom Percy(WA),Dr Robert Moles (SA) along with other eminent lawyers and experts are ALL mistaken that the conviction is unsafe and possibly a gross miscarriage of justice? If Tas Pol and the Tas government are so confident then what possibly can be their objection to a review? An independent review of what the jury was and wasn’t told could be illuminating. I am still waiting to hear why the court transcripts record the repeated suggestions about a wrench being used as a murder weapon when there is no body to show what the cause of death may have been. This all seems to scream for a review !
    Yes the girl on the yacht may have made contradictory statements but in the light of what has been presented on “Shadow of Doubt”, then “Undercurrent”, in books written by Bowles, McLaren and Urban , then 60 Minutes, it seems pretty obvious as to why! Kevin seems to gloss over her not insignificant deposit of DNA on the yacht…..and her obvious trauma …..she needs support and protection from those people she fears.

    • Kevin J says:

      How many times should Meaghan Vass need to go under oath in the Supreme Court to say that she wasn’t on the Four Winds yacht for some people to accept that she wasn’t on the yacht?

      There will always be doubters just like there are doubters about the moonlanding. The reason there will always be doubters in this case is because it is hard for average people without advanced knowledge of forensic science to accept that the secondary transfer is a feasible scenario. From what I read recently, the dark stain on the deck was small – about the size of 50c coin. I am satisfied with the explanation that was provided as to why luminol reacted to a larger region than the visible stain.

      • andrew says:

        You may be satisfied but thousands are not. The whole point of having an appeal mechanism is to enable a further judicial review of the case. We don’t have to argue the details here – better to take it to court, I suggest.

        • Kevin J says:

          Meaghan was in the court only 2 years ago. Sue’s right-to-appeal has been heard.

          But does Meaghan Vass need to go under oath in the Supreme Court until the 1000’s that you mention are satisfied? What makes you think that she will under oath in court say that she was on the yacht?

          • andrew says:

            Sue’s right to appeal has been heard – but not decided. Justice Brett was due to announce his decision a week or two ago….

      • Jo says:

        The statement and affidavit that Meaghan Vass signed are also under oath, and in those she states she was on the yacht. Any argument made about the reasons for her statement and affidavit being withdrawn/unreliable can also be made about her evidence in court, and generally.

        In order to determine which is more likely to be accurate, we need to look at other factors. One that sticks out to me is this. If Meaghan Vass was not on the yacht, why not just stick to that all along? Who would be pressuring her to say she was on the yacht if she wasn’t? I can’t see that Sue Neill-Fraser’s supporters or those involved in the documentary could place pressure in a way that would overcome her protection from the bikies she is associated with (even if you believe they would have considered applying undue pressure, which I don’t). And why would the bikies themselves want her to say it, especially suddenly now after all these years? Doesn’t make sense. So if Meaghan was not on the boat she could have easily have just maintained that consistently.

        What’s another motivation? That Meaghan was not on the boat but thought the possibility of financial payment was worth concocting a story and saying she was. (I am not suggesting this happened, either the offering of money or the thought of receipt, just running through all the hypotheticals.) In this scenario, there’s no reason for it to have been so difficult for her. We now have at least three instances where she has gone to pieces when taking about this – during Undercurrent, in court, and on 60 Minutes.

        There seems no reason for Meaghan to say she was on the boat unless she actually does have something to say about that.

        In addition to this, there is no other explanation for her whereabouts on the night in question that refute her being on the boat. It’s my understanding that after her initial denial at trial evidence emerged that she was staying at a different place to where had been stated and that place acknowledged she was not around. She was not recalled to examine this. There are also other witnesses who indicate she may have been in the vicinity of the boat.

        My point is that it seems rather selective and lacking in common sense to say that just because Meaghan has stated she was not on the boat in court that she definitely wasn’t.

        • Jenny says:

          That was withdrawn. She explained under oath in the Supreme Court in 2017 why she signed it in the first place.

          Let her be in peace because there are people now taking advantage of what is going on and are harassing her via Facebook.

          Have a look at this Facebook post and ask yourself who is a threat to her safety?


          • MM says:

            Tim Chappell? The two men she was on the boat with?? The media? The DPP? The general public who believe Sue is guilty?? They all want a piece of her… take your pick!

            The comment posted on Monday seems to be suggesting there’s other witnesses and CCTV footage that paint a different picture again. I hope Sue’s legal team is onto it.

            That God will be her final judge is something that all Christians believe, it’s not a threat against her life. It’s possibly yet more evidence that witnesses have been intimidated and perversion of justice has occurred on the part of the prosecution.

          • Jo says:

            Not sure if you have missed my point or if I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. My point was that as much as she explained under oath that she wasn’t on the boat and why she may have made a statement saying she was on the boat, she also said under oath that she was on the boat. If the existence of the 60 Minutes affidavit is accurate then she has twice stated under oath that she wasn’t on the boat, and twice stated under oath that she was on the boat. If we’re going in order then first it was that she was not on the boat (trial), then it was that she was (statement/stat dec), then it was that she wasn’t (appeal hearing), then it was that she was (affidavit). As far as we know she is not yet under oath refuting the affidavit depending on the nature of the police interview. And regardless, there are equal under oath instances of both. I would not personally dismiss the ones where she says she was on the boat on the basis of any “under oath arguments”.

            I then explain my thought process on why I don’t think she would have said she was on the boat, especially not multiple times, if there was not validity to that.

            As for the other, I have not checked the link or am I aware of anything about it. Anyone intimidating or threatening Meaghan Vass should be investigated. It’s not OK.

      • CB says:

        Just boggles the mind that anyone can believe her version that says she was not on the yacht when DNA says she was. Logic and facts just do not persuade people to change their mind. Secondary transfer!? What connection did any of the police who entered the yacht have to Vass such that they had her DNA? If it is so easy to have secondary transfer, why didnt every police officer who entered the yacht leave secondary DNA from people they had actually been in contact with? The secondary transfer explanation is just laughable especially in the face of what is known about Vass and who she was associating with at the time. It really is a straight forward case, just so easy. Follow the evidence in a straight forward manner and it takes you there.

  18. Onesimus says:

    A jury can only give a verdict based on the evidence they are given and the way that evidence is presented.

    Unknown or withheld, exculpatory evidence can lead a jury to a wrong verdict.

    If such evidence arises later then there should be an immediate opportunity to challenge any verdict given in ignorance of that evidence.

    That challenge needs to be independent of those who obtained the original conviction to avoid the likely conflict of interest.

  19. Kevin J says:

    The two times Meaghan Vass was under oath in the Supreme Court (2010 & 2017) she stated that she wasn’t on the yacht.

    Is there any reason to believe, on the basis of recent events (her story to 60 Minutes, followed up by the police interviewing Meaghan last week) that Meaghan Vass wouldn’t again state under oath in the Supreme Court that she wasn’t on the yacht? I don’t think so. Dr Moles is basing his argument on the basis of what Meaghan Vass stated outside the Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.