Sue Neill-Fraser not a stereotypical killer – Parole Board

Tasmania’s Parole Board has published its reasons for releasing Sue Neill-Fraser on parole after 13 years (of a 23 year sentence), and noted that she did not present like a stereotypical killer.

The Parole Board said Mr Chappell’s death was a “devastating blow” for his children and a significant loss to his extended family, friends and colleagues. “The burden of their grief has however been made more onerous by the ongoing media interest on his death and focus on (Neill-Fraser),” the board said.

Tim Chappell provided a written statement for the board while it was assessing Neill-Fraser for parole. He said while missing his father and sad his children were too young to remember him, Tim Chappell also said he recognised that Neill-Fraser “does not pose any risk of significance” by being released back into the Tasmanian community.

The board noted the murder had captured public attention for several reasons – including the fact Mr Chappell’s remains had not been found and because of Neill-Fraser “consistently and voraciously” protesting her innocence over the years.

It also noted Neill-Fraser did not present like a stereotypical killer. “She presents as a well-spoken and educated lady of mature years and somewhat inconsistently with the common perception of a person who can, in a premeditated and calculated fashion, kill another,” the board said.

“She is, regardless of her denial of guilt, appearance and manner, a convicted murderer, and the assessment of her suitability for parole has been made on that basis.”

The board said Neill-Fraser had no remorse for her crime and had not helped authorities – or Mr Chappell’s family – in locating his body. (She would no doubt say she felt deep sorrow for the loss of her partner, who she did not kill and would herself dearly like to know what happened to his body.)

It said she had no relevant criminal history and had engaged positively with her fellow inmates and the authorities during her stint behind bars, being held in minimum security and being “productive in the prison gardens”.

The board said she had breached prison regulations twice – once in November 2017 when she was found with unauthorised items like “foodstuffs and makeup”, and again in September last year when she breached prison security by releasing information processes to wrongfulconvictionsreport for publication. (You can read that here.)

“Otherwise, she has presented as a compliant, engaged and polite inmate,” it said.


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

26 Responses to Sue Neill-Fraser not a stereotypical killer – Parole Board

  1. Keith says:

    Is anyone else curious about the submission from Bob Chappell’s son to the Parole Board? Whilst he supported her release andcdid no harm, I thought it was a bit lukewarm, given that he could have said that she should be freed on parole because she didnt do it. That would have sent a powerful message to Elise Archer, but perhaps he does think she was guilty, he doesn’t have a good relationship with Sue, or there is some other legal reason why he could not do so.
    Not casting aspersions in the slightest, just curious.

    • Father Ted Whalensky says:

      Adorning the front gate of Auschwitz (and Risdon)–“Arbeit macht frei”– furiously digging the camp garden could be viewed with suspicion–was at Westbrook ! However that– combined with kowtowing did work–I secretly read my military personnel report Vietnam. Stereotypical mad bastard–belligerent-aint got no education– engages negatively with the cong–permanent private material recommended ! If one reads between the lines–The parole board are as near as dammit admitting wrongful conviction. Wishing it would all go away . They had to release Sue as soon as they could–it’s quite likely going to cost in both money and their already stinking arrogant reputation ! Any further years would just cost more and more in damages ! They are loosers– they have to be– or there is no hope for a decent Australian society .

      • Robert Greenshields says:

        Our society needs to recognise the damage created through institutionalised terrorism Whale. If you have time and access look up “moral injury”, and read of the disastrous repercussions after being exposed to it.
        Far too many authoritative institutions in Oz covertly, seemingly operate under what fits the standard devastatingly soul destroying description. It takes a certain type of delusional individual to maintain the status quo, negativity and cultures I believe. Monomania being among the criteria and a prerequisite for recruitment and retainment.

        • Father Ted Whalensky says:

          Wholly crappe– gunner take a bit of reading– but have had PTSD for so long–Its starting to feel a “norman” state . Wrongful Convictions ( and Acquittals ) seem “normal” in all Australian States. So much so–some people genuinely believe it’s bloody hopeless–ya can’t change a leopards spots-Police are a necessary EVIL– certain types become prison guards-others become priests–others have a deep down feeling–We is all gunner burn 🔥. Oh woe is me– not in capitals- although it should be !

        • Owen allen says:

          I missed this email, working nightshift one on one off.
          Sue was in minimum prison as a convict, albeit wrongly convicted, I was held in maximum security, in the hardest yard on remand for 7 months, for playing guitar in a public place, a regular spot daily, same time same place. Crime, breaking a restraining order. But they tried to break my mind with fear of violence, more to come.

  2. Julie says:

    When’s the independent enquiry into SNF’s wrongful ,murder conviction,- upon circumstantial evidence – & Bob’s 2009 disappearance?

  3. Robert Greenshields says:

    Entwined within the disaster of policing and judicial catastrophes that includes the criminal entrapment of Sue Neil Fraser (and her family), the fixated perspective of delusional Tasmanian public servants, at all active levels of the administration, evidently continues to be exposed unabated.
    During the past week/fortnight/month the unmitigated disasters, as unveiled in media reports from across Australia, confirm the fragility of our citizens ability to sustain and be treated with a respect warranted and deserved, by incredibly fixation cultured, deceitful and practiced officers of the law at all levels of policing, investigation, and resultant legal and authoritative processes. A literal tsunami of recent news reports cements my statement.
    The likely fixation on choreographed in house, pitiable, echelon based narcissistic and amoral standards, accompanied by the relentless maintenance of a conforming and compliance accepted, perceived status quo, is discerned and indelibly tattooed into the membranes of our nations citizens who dare to think of the obvious injustices they recognise as proactive and dysfunctional, as was recorded during our harsh colonial era.
    My thoughts will be with Sue and her family as they enjoy the benefits of some unity as we embrace the proclaimed festive season, and also with supporters who are unafraid of standing up to be counted, and conspicuously, “wear their hearts on their sleeves”. Maintain the faith.

  4. Garry Stannus says:

    Don Wakeling, in his (Thursday 15Dec2022) comment to WCR writes,
    The special conditions for parole does not include any restriction upon Sue discussing her case and the innumerable blatant injustices visited upon her by the trial judge, now Chief Justice, Blow ( the “wrench theory weilder), prosecutor Ellis ( the “wrench” theory inventor, and the investigating police.

    The Parole Board decision can be viewed here:,-susan-blyth
    It includes:

    ”Special conditions applied:
    • Electronic monitoring
    • To obtain and comply with a mental health plan
    • To not contact named person directly or indirectly

    There is a Parole Board publication (Annual Report 2021-2022)
    [] which lists (Annexure A) ‘Examples of Parole Conditions’. I’ve read them and take them to imply that they are a list of conditions that the Parole Board might impose on a paroled prisoner. I have searched for a list of ‘General Conditions’ as opposed to those ‘Special Conditions’ noted above. I found such a list at

    In effect, it seems to me that Sue:

    • report to Community Corrections on release
    • submit to the supervision of a Probation Officer
    • reside only at a place approved by a Probation Officer
    • not change their address without prior approval of a Probation Officer
    • engage only in employment approved by a Probation Officer
    • not change employment without prior approval
    • be of good behaviour and not commit further offences
    • refrain from the excessive consumption (or any consumption) of alcohol
    • obey directions from a Probation Officer relating to associates
    • obey all reasonable directions of a Probation Officer, including requirements to attend counselling for gambling, and substance abuse issues
    • not leave the State of Tasmania without the prior written approval of the Director, Community Corrections
    • not use, possess, or administer any illicit substance
    • not be in the presence of a person who is using or administering an illicit substance
    • present for urinalysis and/or breath testing as and when required

    and also (Special Conditions) must observe the following conditions

    • Electronic monitoring
    • To obtain and comply with a mental health plan
    • To not contact named person directly or indirectly

    • Don Wakeling says:

      Does the list of “named person’s” include any of the lawyers and investigators who exposed the falsity of the case against her and proved her innocence beyond shadow of a doubt. After 13 years and with her age and frailty, why insist on electronically monitoring her.
      There WILL be a Royal Commission and many of the shameful heirarchy will suffer the public shame they deserve.

  5. John Biggs says:

    The most bizarre thing about all this is that we know who murdered Bob: it’s on the public record, but the witness to the murder was bullied into retracting the claim by the DPP. That case is extremely plausible: it hangs together with a lot of other evidence, which has been dismissed by authorities who refuse to admit they made a mistake. So apart from the oft repeated assertion that Sue was convicted, everything else the Parole Board discussed about Sue that here was a decent, caring person who who would be highly unlikely to commit a violent crime. Yet they insist she show them where the body is of a person she certainly did not kill. The case is screaming for an independent commission of enquiry if not a royal commission.

  6. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    Yes, “she was convicted” Andrew and so the bureaucracies of Tasmanian government including from the justice, police and now parole board all still continue to make their point about Sue Neill-Fraser’s refusal to declare where Bob Chappell’s body is! What body I ask. May I concur with their hopes and wish them all a Very circumstantial Merry Christmas.🤬🤬🤬

  7. Don Wakeling says:

    The special conditions for parole does not include any restriction upon Sue discussing her case and the innumerable blatant injustices visited upon her by the trial judge, now Chief Justice, Blow ( the “wrench theory weilder), prosecutor Ellis ( the “wrench” theory inventor, and the investigating police.

  8. Ben Dean says:

    A stereotypical murder in Australia, is a man killing another man. A significant proportion of all murders are associated with another crime. Robbery is proportionally the most likely other crime. Alcohol is highly associated with all murders. A majority of all murderers have a prior criminal record. – A male seeking alcohol, with a prior criminal conviction, robs a yacht and kills a man – statistically represents the most likely scenario. A big battle grey inflatable tied to a yacht, an eyewitness, vomit with a full DNA profile is the Stereotypical Perpetrator.

  9. Pauline Chalmers says:

    Speechless – the authorities can’t even write a TRUTH FILLED Parole Report as Garry Stannus stated – call 13 years in lockdown a “stint” – I found it hard to handle two weeks in managed isolation during Covid – I have no idea how the people who had any responsibility for locking Sue up, sleep at night for fear of the consequences when they face divine justice!

  10. Ross Cameron says:

    “That she did not present like a stereotypical killer”
    That, from the Parole Board: The “Board” did not define what their view of a stereotypical killer was, although they may have some case files on such matters, unbeknown to the general public (and, who the Board used in their accredited psychological (Phd) appraisal of “(stereotypes)”. Please can we have the Board reveal that determination to the public. And the qualifications of those who were part of such assessments, including those who had major doubts earlier on about Sue’s guilt, which led to her incarceration.
    Assuming that the Parole Board, after an “expert; an undefined source, had “doubts”, and could they individually, or in concert, about such matters, making such a statement? Were any of those current Board members present (in whatever capacity, Police, friends, associates, relatives) in the original determination when Sue was convicted?

  11. LB says:

    Tasmania again totally outrageous! Independent inquiry is way overdue, but of course nobody in Tasmania wants this for very obvious reasons it would seem! Scandalous and shameful. The real perpetrators are out there ….but Tasmanians in the main seem to be happy with the status quo? Wake up before it is too late…..

  12. LizzieP says:

    Unauthorised foodstuffs and make up was the worst they could ping her for! You would just know that so many other inmates would likely have had lots of far more serious
    contraband that either went undetected, or a blind eye was turned towards by authorities.

  13. Garry Stannus says:

    The Parole Board’s decision:,-susan-blyth

    The granting of parole was welcome, but two issues that the Board mentioned lacked truth/validity:

    She has breached prison regulations on two occasions, once in November 2017 when she was found in possession of unauthorised items including foodstuffs and makeup and again in September 2021 when she breached prison security by releasing information of prison processes to a “blogger” for publication in the context of describing what her usual day in prison was like.

    That, in my opinion, is a perversion of the truth. The first ‘unauthorised items‘ part of the Board’s comment … is against my understanding of what the Prison says it found … I thought it was some craft materials which Sue had obtained from the prison channels itself. In any case, what she had in her cell … was supplied to her by the prison officers themselves. [Please, readers: correct me if I’m wrong]

    And the reference to breaching prison security by releasing information to a ‘blogger’ for publication … is (according to what of know of that matter) … a perversion of justice. Sue wrote her ‘Day in the Life’ letter and to reach someone like Andrew Urban, it had to be read and passed by the prison censor. I have received letters/cards from Sue, when she was in prison. They came in prison envelopes. I feel that ‘they’ are lying to us.

    I have great difficulty in now regarding the Parole Board decision as being different in kind from that of the Coroner would not make a finding that did not endorse the failed trial decision.


    When I grew up, we used to accept the maxim: “”Justice must not only be done, but Justice must be seen to be done.

    Where are these bunch of turkeys-in-authority leading us?

    Please, correct the bits that I may have got wrong. Thank you for your post, Editor.

  14. tony brownlee says:

    Her “Stint” (13 years) in Jail – these arrogant bastards should try it for themselves for a month!!
    When will these clowns accept the verdict of a jury or a judge or justice does not 100% evidence guilty or for that matter innocence! Courts are not courts of truth, justice, fact or fairness – they are courts of law only where the crown and defence compete for a win.

  15. Rodger Warren says:

    We can only hope that Sue Neill-Fraser will eventually be totally exonerated.
    Take care everyone who reads the Wrongful Convictions Report and have a great Christmas.

  16. Keith says:

    To state the bleeding obvious, the board should be smart enough to realise that one cannot show remorse, or assist in locating a body, if the wrongly convicted person did not commit the crime.

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.