If you see furious senior Tasmanian police lurching red faced out of their HQ, they are probably clutching a 78-page report that just landed which sets out why an independent inquiry into the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser can no longer be avoided, by Barbara Etter APM and Hugh Selby. It dismisses the dismissal by the prosecutor of DNA evidence as a ‘red herring’.
Readers familiar with the case may agree that the most disturbing aspect of the trial was the speculation by then DPP Tim Ellis SC about how the murder occurred, what weapon was used, what injuries he sustained and how she disposed of Bob Chappell’s body (it has never been found) … all without evidence. And condoned by trial judge Alan Blow.
Infamously, Ellis described the DNA found at the crime scene, the deck of the Four Winds yacht, as a ‘red herring’ which gave its name to our recent series inaugurating the Red Herring Certificates.
But it was the flawed police investigation that dragged the case into court. That is the focus of this latest bombshell of a report, by Neill-Fraser’s former lawyer Barbara Etter and former Canberra barrister Hugh Selby. Here is an excerpt:
“There are five sound reasons for questioning the conviction in what was an entirely circumstantial case.
First, recent research, along with a Forensic Biology Report by a member of TASPOL’s Forensic Science Service Tasmania (FSST), Paul Holloway, produced in 2020, but not considered by the 2021 appeal court, gives support to (Meaghan Vass) MV’s DNA being left on the yacht deck on Australia Day 2009. That objective scientific evidence, when combined with the lack of opportunity for her DNA to have been left at a later time, compels a review of her recantation at the appeal, especially as it corroborates her earlier sworn statements in 2017 and 2019 that she was on the yacht on Australia Day.
Second, in 2019 the issue of the MV DNA was referred by FSST to Dr Duncan Taylor, Principal Scientist, Forensic Statistics Forensic Science SA (who is associated with Flinders University and has published extensively on DNA related issues), for “activity level reporting case” which relates to the “when and how” regarding a DNA sample, as opposed to the “who”.
Dr Taylor’s report/response via email dated 7 June 2019 (and any associated material) has, so it seems, never been released beyond the ODPP. Given that it was sought between the granting of leave to appeal in March 2019 and the 2021 appeal it is a reasonable assumption that if the contents were favourable to the police/prosecution case that they would have been disclosed to the appellant. The non-disclosure prompts the hypothesis that the contents were not favourable to the police/prosecution case. Contact with Forensic Science SA is not mentioned on the FSST running sheets also released under RTI in the same disclosure.
Dr Taylor’s response or possible report does not get mentioned in subsequent FSST reports which refer to previous reports in the matter. The referral to Forensic Science SA regarding the MV DNA was not known by the authors until after an External Review by the Ombudsman this year (R2310-016) of the RTI disclosure (following an application by the Hon. Meg Webb dated 27 October 2023). This led to a new set of documents with altered exemptions and additional information released.
The Ombudsman held in his decision of 27 May 2025 that legal professional privilege did not attach to a document or email per se but to the communication recorded within it. Therefore, his finding that s.31 was a valid exemption did not extend to information contained in the address lines, time stamps, signature blocks, salutations and confidentiality disclaimers contained in these emails.
The limited, but nevertheless revealing, new information was not provided by Tasmania Police until June 2025. There is also a Tasmania Police Subject Report dated 3 June 2019 (v 6) headed “RE: CHAPPELL MURDER – DNA RESULT REGARDING MEAGHAN ELISABETH VASS”. It is 10 pages long and the content is completely redacted (other than header, signature block and version details) under s.31 of the Right to Information Act 2009 which relates to legal professional privilege.
These questions follow:
- What was Dr Taylor’s opinion/s or advice?
- Why is his opinion or report not properly referenced in later FSST documents (including running sheets and the Holloway report)?
- Were Dr Taylor’s opinion/s shared with anyone outside FSST, Police and the ODPP? If so, who and when?
Third, significant developments and published research, since the 2021 appeal, in the science of DNA Transfer, Persistence, Prevalence and Recovery (DNA-TPPR) and Time since Deposition (TsD) (see below). It is ironic that critical research supporting our comments in this report regarding DNA persistence has been published by leading scientists/academics from Flinders University in South Australia in 2023.
Fourth, the police claimed that MV, her associates, or both, entered CleanLift Marine and that was when her DNA sample was left. Our recent review of the police records shows those claims to be farfetched. What’s more, those same records show that if police ever thought that claim had legs, then they made no inquiries, open to them at the time and since, to verify that claim.
Fifth, drawing on the above, it is now more likely than not that MV was on the yacht on Australia Day 2009. If so, she was not alone. Others were with her. At no time has there been a suggestion that MV was capable of getting to the Four Winds on her own, let alone overpowering and killing Bob and disposing of his body. That said, it’s a possibility that has to be raised with her at an Inquiry.
The evidence (including the results of several years of RTI (aka FOI) applications to reluctant police) demonstrates that the police had reason to suspect the involvement of others but chose not to properly investigate. In so far as they did make inquiries, it seems they failed to share that information with the prosecution and the court, a fundamental contravention of their duty. It now seems, for instance, that there were two “Sams”. There was also a well known boat thief at the time who should have been properly investigated. Then there are the comments of then Inspector Peter Powell about Vass’ young male associates who were known to break into boatyards and steal things from boats. Why did that failure to investigate and properly disclose information happen?
Only an independent Inquiry with coercive powers, sufficiently broad Terms of Reference and with the resources to retain appropriate experts and skilled investigative and support staff, can give us a reliable answer to that question.”