Meaghan Vass – the aftermath interview

“My 2019 60 mins interview + affidavit is true and correct.” – Meaghan Vass In the aftermath of the dramatic Tasmanian Supreme Court appeal against Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell, the key witness, a traumatised and betrayed Meaghan Vass, sought safety and comfort among her close friends. But she agreed to this written Q&A with Andrew L. Urban. 

Meaghan Vass had previously admitted on 60 Minutes that it was her on the deck of Four Winds – her admission is anchored by her DNA discovered there. Her eye witness testimony under oath in court would confirm that it was not Neill-Fraser but males in Vass’ company who were responsible.

It went more or less according to plan – at first. But on the morning after her initial testimony in response to Robert Richter QC (for Neill-Fraser), media reports revealed the names of the men – in splash front page headlines. That was not according to plan. Vass had been promised by lawyer Stuart Wright that their identities would be suppressed. She feared consequences … and she wanted to take it all back. Under withering cross examination by Tasmania’s DPP, Daryl Coates SC, she agreed to every proposition he put to her that contradicted her earlier evidence. The result was that none of her evidence given in court will be considered by the judges – a blow to the appeal.

Q1 You were terribly upset in court; what upset you most? Why did you agree to the propositions he put to, contradicting what you had said earlier?
The entire subject makes me upset. I was upset because I was hounded and had words put in my mouth….he (Mr Coates) was trying to confuse me and butt in with what he thought and cutting me off. I didn’t want the names out in public. I panicked and was so scared. It was all I could think of to do.
(Meaghan later added:) I didn’t f….ing murder anybody, why are they treating me like this…so I just wanted to shut it all down and get out of there.

Q2 Mr Coates SC suggested (among other things) that you probably went on board Four Winds a day or two after the murder, probably at Goodwood. What do you say to that?
Mr Coates is wrong. He doesn’t want to hear the truth. I know where I was and I know where the boat was and it wasn’t at Goodwood. He has a job to do but it’s not listening to the truth.

Q3 What would you say now to the court if given a chance?
I’d say it was wrong of the lawyer (Stuart Wright) not to suppress my information from the affidavit from 2019 as promised. I’m not crazy and I’m not a liar. I’m telling the truth and no one is listening.

Q4 Mr Coates also tried to imply that you may have been paid to say you were at the crime scene. What do you say to that?
I was never paid to do anything. 60 mins was also zero dollars, for those implying it wasn’t. As if I’d risk implicating myself in something for money if I was no part of it. I was stood over and threatened by people, but not regarding that I was there. They wanted me to make up a big story of how it happened, that wasn’t true. Karen Keefe was the main one. Telling me to say i was on the piss having a party on the boat with bob when things turned sour. That was bullshit. She is evil. But Jeff thompson (Hobart solicitor) has been so good to me. I love jeff. He’s such a sweet man who only wants the truth as well.

Q5 Has anyone at all contacted you since your court appearance?
Yes a few people from Tas Police to ask if I was safe – and mostly people have been ok. I’ve received nasty messages on facebook which I block.

Q6 You were said to have apologised to Sue Neill-Fraser and her lawyers – is that true? Can you put into words why you felt sorry?
Because I feel like I tried to do what was right but it seemed doomed from the start, from Andy not being allowed (to be her support person in the witness box), to the suppression etc…I tried again and again to say that the 2019 affidavit was true. Then I spoke with fabiano (Cangelosi, MV’s barrister from 2017) about it but by then it was too late. My evidence was not of any use, so they said.

Q7 Do you feel the need for police protection?
No way. Police protection. That’s funny. I don’t want them anywhere near me. I don’t trust them at all.

Q8 What would you like to see happen next?
I’d like to see the appeal seen for what it was by the judges. Surely they can. I want the lawyer who promised me suppression be reprimanded as he is the only reason things turned (out) the way they did on the Tuesday.

To everyone. My 2019 60 mins interview + affidavit is true and correct.

       —     Meaghan Vass

Refer to our report for details of the appeal hearing.

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

42 Responses to Meaghan Vass – the aftermath interview

  1. Brian H. says:

    And all the while, as egotistical nobodies take potshots at each other to feed their narcissism, a lovely lady has had a decade unfairly snatched from her life by incompetence and corrupted systems of justice within Tasmania. No fair minded person could still believe Sue was physically capable of having carried out the murder of Bob, nor even be the type of person who could do such a thing. This continues to be one of the worst cases of a miscarriage of justice in the annals of Australian history. Not only is it such a tragedy for Sue herself, but for those members of her extended family, and for her friends, this will forever scar their lives. WHEN! will justice prevail!!!😢😢😢 Oh! and just by the way, the REAL murderer roams free among you while you argue inane, finer technical points which helped to imprison an innocent person.

    • owen allen says:

      And if they are permitted to get away with it; worse will come.
      Justice does prevail in some states. NSW Police Raptor Force have been charged and are in court.
      Harassing and intimidating a lawyer going about his business on the way to work, to defend a Raptor client so to speak.
      I nearly had a panic attack after reading this. Find it, read it, blow your mind.
      BUT AT LEAST they are facing COURT ACTION. Unlike some states.

  2. Alex says:

    Did you ask how many people were on the boat with her? She said 3 on the Monday and then changed to 2 on the Tuesday. She said it was 2 on 60 Minutes – is that what the affidavit says?

  3. Debbrah Holt says:

    Why is nothing being said about Paul wroe? He’s known to be a violent person (& I should know, I was engaged to the animal)

    • andrew says:

      Well, you’re breaking that silence…well done and thanks.

    • Alex says:

      If he wasn’t on the boat, per Meaghan’s affidavit and amended testimony, why is he relevant?

      • Felix says:

        There were 2 full years between Meaghan’s interview on 60 Minutes and her appearance as the defence witness in the appeal. Given that in her 60 Minutes affidavit she mentioned that there were two males with her it is then hard to understand what Meaghan was relying upon (her memory of that night or other information) when on the first day of the appeal she said that there were 3 males on the boat with her.

        • andrew says:

          I’m not a spokesman for Meaghan Vass but I have twice in the last few days replied to Alex on this very question, being aware that “Two males with her, as per affidavit. She got flustered and made a mistake … which she has admitted.” OK?

          • Alex says:

            Thanks for your response to the query andrew. This point is a different one in that you are praising the OP for bringing Paul Wroe into question, when your response to my previous query makes it clear he wasn’t on the boat

  4. Jennifer says:

    Your latest comment has been withheld from publication by the moderator. This could be due to one of a number of criteria, including the regurgitating of matters previously addressed/debated at length, lack of relevance, ignorance of the key facts of the case, denigration of others/disrespectful commentary, distractions or attempted disruptions and ‘remote psychoanalysis’ of persons involved in the case in question. No correspondence will be entered into.

  5. Robin Bowles says:

    Btw, I know I’ve had my say earlier, but the hammering of Meaghan ( apart from being very unedifying professionally) by the DPP caused her to say she had made her story up for 60 Minutes, just to get out of his clutches. I would be willing to say under oath that Meaghan’s story was told to me about two YEARS before 60 Minutes and I was told by two close friends of hers ( at the time). I was also told of the circumstances under which she’d willingly revealed this information. There’s also the hairdresser ( forget his name) who gave evidence he saw a girl resembling her coming up from the beach that night with two older men. There’s also credible information available that she was persuaded to tell the truth believing she could swear an affidavit and she’d only ever have to answer questions on the things in that affidavit, but of course under our adversarial legal system the DPP could attempt to elicit much more VITAL info, such as how tall the men on the boat with her were, how old, eye colour, etc! It’s a wonder he didn’t ask what they had for breakfast!! Why hasnt Sam faced questions under oath? Why has it all been on Meaghan’s vulnerable shoulders??

    • Felix Greenwood says:

      In your book you wrote that Sam was in the witness box. It was Andy Brown who picked that error in your book.

      If you listen to what Colin McLaren said on 60 Minutes, Sam was interviewed by TasPol (after Meaghan’s 2017 affidavit).

      I read your book. My burning question to you is in the following paragraph:

      The Trial Transcript indicates thatva TasPol detective was informed by Mara House that they have recorded the time of 3:50 pm as the time when Meaghan left there in Australia Day. The Trial Transcript shows that an eye witness (Mr Paul Conde) was quite certain that he saw a grey dinghy at portisde of Four Winds at 4:55 pm. The Crown’s case was that it was Sue’s dinghy but the dinghy appeared to be grey from distance. The defence case at the recent appeal is that it was Meaghan (and male associates) who boarded Four Winds via the sighted grey dinghy. My question to you is simply this:

      how did Meaghan get from Mara House in Forster St, New Town, to Four Winds in 5 minutes given that the distance between Mara House and Sandy Bay is a 15 minute drive?

      You can reply to my email address if you wish. It is felixg1968co@gmail.com

      • Kate Gray says:

        You said Megan left at 350pm and the dinghy was seen at 455pm. That’s 65minutes – plenty of time for her to get there.

        • Garry Stannus says:

          Yes Kate, you make a good point.

          However, the person to whom you are replying has made a mistake: a large dark grey rubber dinghy was seen by Paul Conde (and by Anne and Tom Clarke) at 3: 55 PM, on 26Jan2009.

          If the time of Vass signing out from Mara House (3:50 PM) is correct, then she could not have been on the Four Winds when the dinghy was seen by Conde.

          Yet her DNA is on the boat and the fresh evidence of Mr Jones at the leave to Appeal hearings, was that it was most likely a primary deposit.

          What exceptional set of circumstances could have pertained such that a dinghy – not the dinghy from the Four Winds – was there at five minutes before the hour of four o’clock… that Vass was not on the boat then … (if the record of her signing out is authentic) … yet that at some stage she was on that boat?

          Mr Conde’s description of the dinghy that he saw was quite firm. He told the court that the dinghy he saw was not that of the Four Winds… the colour, a lee cloth, the age and size (as I recall). Anyone who sees the photo of the Four Winds dinghy would know that it could not fail to be recognised for what it was … a quite white dinghy, with a dark blue horizontal band [probably about 5 cm in width which traversed the white inflatable tubing around the dinghy, from fin to fin. There was also three vertical rings (same colour and size) which were grouped together (again about 5 cm apart) in the middle of both sides of the white inflatable tubing. Between those rings and the fins (pointy ends at the back) was the brandname: QUICKSILVER standing out strongly on its white background, and above that band of blue.

          A further thing that should be noted is that running along with the dark blue horizontal band around the length of the tubing, was a contiguous and much narrower trim of light grey (only about 1 cm in width)

          See the dinghy for yourself: https://tinyurl.com/5h9kpzrd [I hope I’ve got the link working for you!]

  6. Shirley Williams says:

    I do worry about Meaghan, have hoped she is getting support. Imagine a fifteen year old witnessing such things. She would have be traumatised not to mention scared stiff. My heart goes out to her.

  7. Felix says:

    This is a grammar corrected version.

    Aldo,

    The one big problem with your opinion is the UV radiation.

    Meaghan can say what she likes but science goes against her depositing her DNA full 3 days prior to it being sampled mid-summer when UV index is generally extreme. DNA gets damaged rather quickly by UV radiation.

    Anyone who wishes to discuss the impact of solar UV radiation on the quality of DNA can contact me on the following email address:

    felix1968co@gmail.com

    • andrew says:

      The expert witnesses have been heard, but thanks for your interest.

      • felix1968co@gmail.com says:

        Your latest comment has been withheld from publication by the moderator. This could be due to one of a number of criteria, including the regurgitating of matters previously addressed/debated at length, lack of relevance, ignorance of the key facts of the case, denigration of others/disrespectful commentary, distractions or attempted disruptions and ‘remote psychoanalysis’ of persons involved in the case in question. No correspondence will be entered into.

    • Jennifer says:

      Your latest comment has been withheld from publication by the moderator. This could be due to one of a number of criteria, including the regurgitating of matters previously addressed/debated at length, lack of relevance, ignorance of the key facts of the case, denigration of others/disrespectful commentary, distractions or attempted disruptions and ‘remote psychoanalysis’ of persons involved in the case in question. No correspondence will be entered into.

    • Andy says:

      Felix i think its high time u put a cork in it. No one is listening to your mindless twaddle

  8. Robert Greenshields says:

    Brave of Meaghan to be interviewed and confront the important issue of state sponsered corruption, and cultures of venality that seem to be inherent within the Tasmanian Policing and Judicial systems. Question 7 was interesting in that in her response the value of the Tasmanian policing service was again confirmed, and that specific response by Meaghan could well be transferred to the lack of trust and credibility in now active, and past mainland policing organisations, along with ex policing officers too.

  9. Rosemary says:

    Meaghan has key information and clearly wants to tell her story. There seems to be great denial from people who have no knowledge of what she knows yet still throw around their opinions. Thank you Meaghan for persisting to tell your information.

  10. Robin Bowles says:

    Wow! Well done Andrew for getting the interview. What a shame for Sue that the full truth may never be known. I totally believe Meaghan and I’ve spoken to people she knows who have corroborated her evidence. The DPP ‘doing his job’ ensured that his employers, the State Govt, might avoid responsibility for the unjust imprisonment of an innocent woman! This is one of Australia’s most infamous wrongful convictions. There’s a lot of ‘skin in the game’ and many people have a lot to lose!

  11. Felix says:

    That will be the day. I wasn’t born yesterday nor did I stop my education at year 12.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      ???
      Did anyone say you were born yesterday or ceased education @ year 12?
      Your comments evade the facts, are useless to the discussion, are negative and ill-informed.

      You seem desperate to avoid the truth being exposed. Why is that?

      Meaghan Vass earns and receives the admiration of numerous citizens, as she endeavours against the odds, to have the truth exposed. She’s battling under extreme adverse conditions, yet will not give up.

      What a brave young woman, to keep going against a corrupt system that is trying unsuccessfully to shut her up.

      Keep going Meaghan💕; heaps of people are walking beside you. We’re not leaving either ✅✅✅✅👏👏👏👏

      • felix1968co@gmail.com says:

        you can contact me on the email provided regarding the impact of solar UV radiation on the degradation of DNA.

        • Geraldine Allan says:

          As if!
          I don’t want to read more of your persistence with ‘non-relevant to the current status of this wrongful conviction’ gratuitous self-indulgence. You seem intent on ‘hounding’ any/all who you believe may be inclined to engage.

        • Robin Bowles says:

          I fear the UV rays have interfered with Felix’s brain cells! Time for him to take a long walk—(edited)

          • Felix says:

            Robin Bowles,

            The 3 Appeal Court judges won’t be making their decision on anything that Meaghan said in her 2019 affidavit to 60 Minutes nor on anything she said to the Court during the recent appeal BUT will instead have to decide whether the DNA could have survived without degradation on the walkway of Four Winds, and whether there was another dinghy (not Sue’s dinghy) at portside of Four Winds at 4 – 5 pm that was seen by two different group of people that sailed by Four Winds that afternoon.

            Since the Victorian Forensic expert expressed an opinion, under cross-examination in October 2017, that the biological substance could have lasted days but his preferred option is 1-2 days, it leaves us to ask what could degrade DNA at such a rapid rate. Try sunbathing on a deck of a boat during summer in Tasmania for 6 hours only and see what happens to your skin.

    • Andy says:

      But you hide behind fake profiles and even act as your wife to harrass me on social media. Get a grip mate. Your ip address stays the same but your name has changed what…. three times now,
      Im no rocket scientist but you have the brain of a gnat
      Felix or christine etc etc.

  12. Chris Saunders says:

    I feel for Meaghan because people will not leave her alone – hounded by all including you lot. You will stop at nothing. Bring on the Appeal decision and it won’t be pretty I feel. Who are you going to hound next.

  13. alison Heathorn says:

    so why is nothing done about Sam Devine and Stephen Gleeson, they have been named ,their names have been published in the paper, yet we see nothing about them being questioned.

    • andrew says:

      As I’ve said on an earlier comment, the police are legally restricted from pursuing enquiries viz possible persons of interest in a case where the court has delivered a guilty verdict.

      • felix says:

        They did NOT board Four Winds on Australia Day nor any other day.

        • aldo says:

          It’s actually not unreasonable to suggest that they were on board the yacht prior to the night Bob Chappell was killed, in the company of Vass who presumably was either intoxicated or drug affected which caused her to vomit on the deck. That being said i do not for a moment believe that they were guilty of Chappell’s murder regardless of what Vass claims..

          • andrew says:

            You have introduced really important new information here. It is incumbent on you to explain on what evidence you rely to make your statement. Please go ahead: I am listening. Meaghan Vass is listening. The police and the DPP are listening. The courts may be listening (secretly). Those men are certainly listening. The media, local and mainland, are definitely listening. And of course the families of Bob Chappell and Sue Neill-Fraser are all listening. Go ahead …

          • Andy says:

            Were u there aldo? You seem so sure of this

          • Jennifer says:

            Your latest comment has been withheld from publication by the moderator. This could be due to one of a number of criteria, including the regurgitating of matters previously addressed/debated at length, lack of relevance, ignorance of the key facts of the case, denigration of others/disrespectful commentary, distractions or attempted disruptions and ‘remote psychoanalysis’ of persons involved in the case in question. No correspondence will be entered into.

Leave a Reply to Garry Stannus Cancel 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.