Andrew L. Urban
You won’t be surprised that the Tasmanian Government is continuing to stonewall on the calls for an inquiry into the Sue Neill-Fraser case, firmly keeping a blind eye on the mountain of reasons in favour of one. The latest exhibition of this happened in the Legislative Council in the evening of Tuesday, December 2, 2025, when the latest Etter Selby report was tabled by Michael Gaffney (Ind, Mersey). And then that mysterious phone call …
Not surprised…but maybe outraged all over again? The main speakers were Mike Gaffney (Independent), Meg Webb (Independent) and Tania Rattray (the leader of Government business). Rattray noted that the matter had been subject to court proceedings and stated “with the greatest of respect” there was no need for an inquiry. You can’t blame Rattray, she is just the mouthpiece for the Government position, mouthing an unsupportable statement. Why do Tasmanians tolerate this? The volume of material challenging this conviction is large, credible and evidence based. Our latest report, Dec. 2, 2025, presents four grounds supporting a pleading of fraud on the court, never before considered by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, capable of overturning the conviction immediately.
This has been going on for so long (the trial was in 2010, the first appeal in 2011) that Tasmanians themselves now bear responsibility for putting up with the failure of their politicians (with notable exceptions) to support the rule of law. Respect and adherence to the rule of law, from police to prosecutors and judges, has failed in this case (as it has in the case of Marco Rusterholz). From penal colony to police state, has Tasmania evolved from cruel to corrupt? You, Tasmanians, are the only ones who can exert the pressure necessary to cleanse your state of the stench of injustice.
Speaking to the Legislative Council in the wake of tabling the Etter Selby report Mark 2, Gaffney said “There are serious questions about the quality and oversight of the police investigation, the independence of Tasmanian Police Forensic Science Services, known as FSST, the handling of the disclosure to the courts by both police and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, and the lack of proper management of and support for Ms Meaghan Vass after she made sworn statements to having been on the yacht.”
On page 8 of the 17 page Hansard record, Gaffney says “Let me turn to some additional new matters that cause concern in the handling of scientific evidence, in this case, especially with the respect to an apparent lack of accountability and transparency. A small blue towel was found on the deck of the yacht near the Meaghan Vass DNA. The item, which we know still exists, was not mentioned in the 2009 major forensic biology report, an omission still not explained despite RTI and correspondence by Robert Richter KC to the DPP Commissioner of Police and the Director of FSST. We know it was in the DNA lab in early February 2009, from disclosed records. Despite numerous requests in recent years, police are still refusing to allow an independent expert to review relevant FSST records or organise independent testing of that towel – why?”
In the end, Gaffney said “the government needed to pursue two responses. The first and most urgent is facilitating a further leave to appeal by Ms Neill-Fraser. The second is an appropriately resourced and empowered inquisitorial inquiry to get the bottom of what, on the face of it, seems to be too many problems with the investigation, the forensics, the prosecution and the appeals. Appropriate independent expert opinion is needed in that regard.”
Also speaking to the motion was Meg Webb (Ind. Nelson). She told the Council “The case for an in-depth examination of this conviction is now overwhelming, particularly so when there are persons of interest and known associates of Meaghan Vass who, it would appear, were never properly investigated despite apparent police knowledge of their involvement in boat crimes. Why weren’t such associations disclosed to the court? The long list of apparent nondisclosures in this case is frightening, including the issue of the search for the supposedly missing fire extinguisher from the Four Winds at the home of a well known boat thief, only a couple of weeks after Mr Chappell’s disappearance, and information obtained in recent years under RTI about the surrounding circumstances.
“If it isn’t bad enough that our mortuary/autopsy services are not accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), additionally Tasmania Police is the only police agency in Australia to not have its police forensic services, including crime scene investigations, tool marks, ballistics, et cetera, accredited with NATA. FSST also only has basic NATA accreditation and is not accredited to the Australian Forensic Standards.
“Tasmania’s limited forensic services accreditation does little to assist in restoring public confidence in our criminal justice and judicial system.”
Gaffney’s Motion “Calls on the government to establish a Commission of Inquiry to enquire into and report on the correctness of the conviction of Susan Neill-Fraser for the murder of Bob Chappell.”
The motion will be debated in March 2026.
The phone call
Gaffney then revealed a mysterious phone call in which he was told the name of Bob Chappell’s killer.
“I should also comment the last time I raised the Selby issue some years ago, I arrived home that night after being here presenting. I usually don’t answer phone calls that are private or unknown, but I did. I had a pen and paper there. I had this voice, and the voice said to me, ‘Are you that Gaffney fella?’ and I said, ‘Yes, that’s me; he said, ‘Are you the one who’s just done this Sue Neill-Fraser thing at that parliament?’, I said ‘Yes’; and he said ‘Well, I’ve got something I need to tell you’; and he gave the name of a person who he said his girlfriend had known was the killer of Bob Chappell. My response, and I’ve not mentioned this to anybody else, but I think this is how important I believe this is to be – I rang the commissioner who was Darren Hine at the time and I said, ‘This is the phone call, this is what I’ve received, do I do? and he said somebody will ring you within five minutes and that happened.
“I feel that is important information because that name was given to me and the police were aware of that name.” And that was that ….
“In closing, it is telling that in the near three weeks since I tabled the Etter/Selby report that there has been silence from the police and the ODPP. It is telling not only because they may have no answer, it is also telling because being able to own up to a mistake is one of the hardest things to do. Rather than belatedly joining in a quest for truth and justice, the latest example of bunkering down is the police RTI response last week to the member Meg Webb, refusing to disclose the full exchange of Dr Duncan Taylor, of Forensics South Australia that predates the 2021 appeal. In the face of such determined intransigence and a commitment to keeping the lid on, there’s only one solution I believe, a wide-ranging powerful commission of inquiry so that this matter can be fully resolved. “
But given the history, it would not surprise if even a credible confession to the murder would jolt Tasmania’s legal system into action to exonerate Neill-Fraser.
At least FSST has a long history of NATA accreditation since 1998, unlike Tasmania Police forensics who bungled the initial assessment of the Four Winds.
https://nata.com.au/accredited-organisation/forensic-science-service-tasmania-13072-13065/?highlight=forensic
Wasn’t the problem with the blue towel that it was not present in the initial crime scene photos, so must have been left on the boat later? So no point testing it (as it would indeed be a red herring…).
As for the blood evidence, the jury were told about screening tests and their limitations. Gunson could have objected to this evidence as being prejudicial, but did not do so (sigh). The other problem was Ellis suggesting there was blood – nothing the expert can do about that during the trial when the expert is not in the witness box – the prosecutor can put their own spin on the evidence in the absence of the expert.
Regarding: The Small Blue Towel
The small blue towel was tested for DNA in early 2019 at the request of Detective Sinnitt, following the 60 Minutes interview with Meaghan Vass. That testing identified DNA belonging to a first responder.
This finding strongly suggests that the small blue towel was brought onto Four Winds by a person who boarded the vessel during the search and recovery phase, likely to assist with searching the yacht and/or pumping out water. It is plausible that the first responder used the towel to dry their hands and subsequently left it on the walkway.
Accordingly, the presence of the small blue towel does not support Meaghan Vass’s account and should be regarded as a red herring, unrelated to the origin of the DNA sample recovered from the starboard walkway.
This sequence of events is documented on page 68 of the Etter & Selby Report:
10 March – 60 Minutes program airs, in which Meaghan Vass states that she was on Four Winds with others and refers to a small blue towel found on the deck near the location where her DNA was later detected. The towel was not listed in the original Forensic Biology Report (FBR).
15 March (8:04 am) – Detective Sinnitt emails Jack Shapiro, Pam Scott, and others requesting urgent forensic analysis of the small blue towel/face washer, specifically asking whether Meaghan Vass’s DNA is present.
15 March – The small blue towel is examined by Max Holloway of Forensic Science Service Tasmania (FSST).
22 March – FSST issues a Forensic Biology Report authored by Holloway and Grosser, identifying DNA on the towel attributable to a first responder.
So why are all of Sue’s supporters banging on about the blue towel as if there is some conspiracy afoot. It does Sue’s case no good going down these blind alleys.
Imagine if the police had done their job properly and intelligently, and as soon as they had a whiff that Bob had vanished and might even have been murdered, had preserved the crime scene and called out FSST scientists to examine the boat within a day of it being found slowly sinking in the Derwent.
Instead, even more people were allowed to wander over the boat (including Sue – since when do you allow a suspect in a possible murder case to wander around the scene of a crime? If Sue had not been taken back to the boat she could not have been accused later of “interfering” with the crime scene!) and the boat was left in a public place at Constitution Dock and then moved to a shipyard for a few days before it occurred to the police to call in FSST. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction – if you were to see this sit on our hands scenario play out in a movie, everyone would find it implausible.
What a strange case! Sue’s supporters fixated on the forensic evidence, and using that to try to get her exonerated in the failed Appeals process, when there is no scientific evidence that actually incriminates her. None. Sue’s DNA was all over the boat, no surprises there. No blood confirmed on the dinghy – makes sense – dinghy not required to move a body when there is a conveniently-placed deep body of water right under the Four Winds and currents to whisk Bob away forever.
A couple of things: the police did not suspect Sue of murdering Bob until much later – nor anyone else. It began as a missing person case. Second, it is hardly surprising that Sue supporters were “banging on” about the blue towel, given the appalling behaviour of police, giving rise to suspicions that the police were not pursuing justice. It was considered suspicious that the blue towel went missing in police custody. That is understandable.
As for the prosecution fantasy that Sue had to get Bob’s body onto the deck and then into the dinghy … when as you say they were anchored in deep water….yes, it sounds like a skit from a Monty Python show.
Began as a missing person case? Surely an astute detective would have pretty quickly considered the possibility of foul play given the attempted sinking of the Four Winds. Someone had to be responsible for that, or did the police think Bob had vandalised his own boat before unexpectedly vanishing?
We had dealing with Tania Rattray when we were living in Tasmania – we had some serious problems with Dishonesty & Bullying in Tasmania Police and others – She did Nothing – Useless. Not to be trusted.
Thank you, Andrew, for your tireless reporting on this long-running injustice. The depth of the Etter/Selby material and the civil fraud analysis (as reinforced by LIA’s findings) makes it difficult to see how continued silence from authorities can be justified.
While public and parliamentary pressure is essential, I’d like to propose a targeted legal strategy that might offer a realistic path forward:
🔹 Initiate a Civil Application for Fraud on the Court – in Tasmania
As Dr. Moles has written and LIA has confirmed, the law permits a civil action alleging “fraud on the court” to be brought in the same jurisdiction where the fraud occurred—in this case, the Tasmanian Supreme Court. This process does not require leave, proceeds on the balance of probabilities, and can invalidate even High Court judgments if fraud is proven. Critically, this route allows direct judicial scrutiny of whether key evidence (forensics, witness credibility, DNA, police conduct) was misleading or concealed.
🔹 Use International Expert Affidavits, Not Foreign Courts
While some have suggested seeking a finding of fraud in a neutral overseas court, this would likely be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and could backfire legally. A better alternative is to obtain affidavits or expert reports from reputable international forensic and legal experts. These can be used as evidence in the Tasmanian civil application, adding external credibility without jurisdictional confusion.
🔹 Demand Venue Transparency and Judicial Scrutiny
To address concerns over judicial impartiality in Tasmania, the application should include a motion for transparency, such as allowing media attendance, requesting an out-of-jurisdiction judge (where legally viable), or even inviting the Commonwealth Attorney-General to monitor the process as amicus.
🔹 Parallel Strategy: Political, Media, and International Advocacy
The legal process should be complemented by a multi-channel strategy: engage the UN Human Rights Committee (under ICCPR Art. 14, right to a fair trial); continue parliamentary pressure for a Commission of Inquiry; and coordinate with legal academics and journalists to keep public attention alive.
🔹 Endgame: Path to Compensation and Exoneration
If fraud is found, the conviction can be vacated. Only then will the path to meaningful compensation open—Tasmania’s reluctance now is no mystery: exoneration brings financial and institutional accountability. The civil fraud case is the legal lever that may finally force that door open.
We all want justice. But we also need strategy. A well-formulated fraud-on-the-court claim is the most direct and enforceable route still available.
On the Reliability of Trace DNA and the Role of Dr Duncan Taylor’s System
As public scrutiny intensifies in the Sue Neill-Fraser case, it’s essential to examine the scientific underpinnings of key forensic claims—particularly those involving trace DNA analysis. I want to draw attention to broader concerns about the methodologies employed by Dr Duncan Taylor and similar trace DNA systems.
In another case known to me, Dr Taylor’s trace DNA reporting system produced probabilistic findings that were later discredited by both an international DNA expert and a national-level forensic scientist. The reliability issues centred on the interpretation algorithms, contamination risks, and assumptions about transference—especially when no source-level attribution could be established.
The core problem here is legal: trace DNA without a reliable source attribution should be inadmissible, or at the very least, treated with extreme caution. Under reliability thresholds set by cases such as Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 and the Daubert standard (in US jurisprudence), expert evidence must:
Be based on validated methodology
Be applied correctly to the facts
Assist the court rather than mislead it
When probabilistic trace DNA findings are presented as conclusive, or worse, used to override other contradictory evidence, this is not science—it’s forensic overreach. The potential for wrongful conviction becomes acute when such results are used without full disclosure of:
Laboratory contamination controls
Transfer mechanisms
Analyst discretion thresholds
In Sue Neill-Fraser’s case, the refusal to allow independent testing of key items—including the towel near the Meaghan Vass DNA—is not just suspicious; it is arguably obstructive.
I would urge legal teams, legislators, and journalists alike to question not just the outcomes of forensic science, but the systems and individuals behind them. DNA does not convict people. Interpretation does.
The Rockliff Govt and Justice system are too up themselves to admit error. Could a civil case, crowd funded possibly, open things up?
The crime here, is the Tasmanian Governments wilful belligerence
Steven, you’re absolutely right — the Tasmanian Government’s wilful belligerence is shocking. But what’s even more dangerous is why they behave this way: because the system is designed to protect itself, not to prevent injustice.
Once a wrongful conviction happens, the state faces massive consequences — financial compensation, reputational damage, institutional accountability. That makes it resistant to correction. But that’s reactive. The real solution is preventative: we must change the prosecutorial system itself.
Wrongful prosecutions are not flukes. They’re built on:
Confirmation bias during investigations
Misleading or overstated forensic evidence
Withheld exculpatory material
A culture of winning, not truth-seeking
We need serious reform:
Independent oversight of prosecutions, separate from the DPP
Mandatory full disclosure, reviewed by external bodies — not left to prosecutorial discretion
Forensic labs that are independent of police and prosecution funding chains
A codified duty on prosecutors to avoid wrongful convictions — enforceable in law
A standing Miscarriage of Justice Commission (as now proposed in Canada), with real investigative power
Until we redesign the machinery that leads to wrongful charges and convictions, cases like Sue Neill-Fraser’s will keep happening — and governments will keep resisting the truth. The system isn’t just failing. It’s wired to fail in the same way, over and over.
Time to rewire it.
You hit the nail on the head, Adrian. And Tasmania is not the only state in Australia. SA no different.