Andrew L. Urban
Australian PM Anthony Albanese is not the first political leader to make phony excuses to avoid an inquiry – and for similar self serving reasons: to avoid accountability. Regular readers will remember how back in July 2023, Tasmania’s Attorney-General Elise Archer made some pompous and erroneous excuses to avoid an inquiry into the case of Sue Neill-Fraser, who was convicted (wrongfully, we maintain*) of murdering her partner Bob Chappell.
Archer claimed that “Tasmania and Australia’s highest courts have each now considered Ms Neill-Fraser’s case in great detail. It is important that the courts’ decisions be respected. For me not to do so would undermine the rule of law and the judiciary”.
Yet on May 4, 2023, she had intervened to direct the coroner to hold an inquest into the death of Jari Wise, a man who died after being struck by a car driven by his former partner, overturning a Supreme Court decision made just hours earlier.
She also made the mistake of conflating Neill-Fraser’s seeking leave to appeal to the High Court with the Court hearing her appeal.
The Attorney-General – and those before and after her in that portfolio – stubbornly resisted holding such an inquiry; stubbornly because there was (is) a volume of evidence to challenge the conviction. But it would be deeply embarrassing to the Tasmanian police & legal establishment to have an inquiry (if it were genuine) articulate the many failures in the investigation and prosecution of the case.
Likewise, a Royal Commission into the Bondi massacre would no doubt have the same effect, leaving Labor leaders with egg on their face and blood on their hands. But Albanese has made fake excuses to avoid one, resisting the massive public pressure to launch a Royal Commission. I for one, hope he doesn’t relent: a Royal Commission steered by him could well be hobbled by its terms of reference. And that would be a despicable slamming shut of the accountability door.
Albanese could strategically narrow the scope, focus on non-contentious or external factors, and include explicit exclusions or limitations.
*“In my view, on an objective assessment of the record, and recognising the limitations in doing so, after taking into account the fresh and compelling evidence of Mr Jones, there is a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, might have acquitted the appellant had the fresh evidence been before it at the trial. I would uphold the appeal and quash the appellant’s conviction for murder.” – Justice Estcourt dissenting opinion at appeal.
Dear Mr Stannus,
The case of the ‘weatherbeaten sailor’ shouldn’t be news to you!!! It was written about many times before (on Tasmanian Times, in Eve Ash’s 2015, and 2019 CLANT Conference presentation, Barbara Etter’s blog in 2015, on Wrongful Convictions Report, etc.
It’s also on
https://www.savesue.com/facts/
6. A resident overlooking the bay saw a weather-beaten man, in a zodiac dinghy around 7.45pm to 8.30pm the night of the murder, near to the Four Winds. She described him as “male, solid/stocky build, late 40s to early 50s, weather beaten sailor look type, short reddish brown hair, but not close shaven. The hair was possibly a bit wavy and fairly thick. The male was wearing a collared white sleeved shirt with no obvious pattern or emblem.” Remarkably, police turned this rugged male description to match the description of Sue!
It was Etter who first discovered that the statement of the witness was provided to Neill-Fraser legal team. But neither the prosecution nor the defence used that in the trial.
Are you Peter L., Jenny, or are you working closely with him?
For the general readers’ information, Peter was banned from WCR some years ago by the Editor, Andrew Urban.
Perhaps Jenny, you’ve also been reading his occasional comments on that Facebook group site, called ‘Sue Neill-Fraser is guilty’?
So it seems as if you are just parroting second-hand information, garnered by chaps like Peter. I thought that perhaps you were privy to information not available publicly, but it seems you or Peter have just been trawling through what is available on the ‘net (e.g. Barbara Etter’s CLANT Conference post).
That stuff is ‘old news’, Jenny …by the way, here’s an observation for you: I’ve always thought that the description of the ‘weatherbeaten sailor’ (seen from Napoleon St) matched that of Paul W., whose yacht had been moored close to the Four Winds, at one stage. [That is according to the evidence of Grant M. who gave evidence (Nov. 2017) at one of the hearings which led to the unsuccessful 2nd Appeal]
I won’t be responding to any of your further comments, Jenny K. Your comments are by and large: unreferenced and untested assertions. Further to that, a large part of your material appears to be ‘ghost-written’ by Peter L. You also seem to mismanage elements of info, matching them up with other bits incorrectly … a bit like putting the wrong piece into the jig-saw puzzle.
Elsewhere, I was trying to give you a full and referenced response to your original response to something I’d written in another of WCR’s articles, as your response there had seemed polite and ordered though incorrect in a number of its assertions.
[https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2025/12/12/prosecutorial-misconduct-triggers-new-trial-for-greg-lynn/#comment-183920]
However, it seems that you are swamping this thread with a variety of comments and I’m reluctant to get into responding to or correcting whatever you next might post.
My thoughts exactly. Regurgitating misshapen information and self-aggrandising commentary a la Peter L have stretched my moderating patience to breaking point. Readers deserve better. For the sake of open debate I’m reluctant to reject comments but …
I read Dr Peter Lozo’s volumous comments about this case on Tasmanian Times. I came across his comments (all the way to 2015) when I became interested in this case following the 60 Minutes interview of Meaghan Vass. I have since gotten in touch with him because I wanted his opinion on the DNA.
He did inform me about your comments and the debate between you and him about a range of issues.
You ought to go back over the evidence related to the colour of Paul Wroe’s dinghy!
I have not lodged a vote for years as I distrust all parliamentarians, and certainly distrust police and our legal system. I also put my focus on the phone call Susan received from a male who was unknown to her but warned her something was going to happen to anyone on the yacht that night. SUSAN NEIL FRASER IS INNOCENT.
Well said, Andrew. Jenny’s insinuations rely on cherry-picked or misremembered details that don’t hold up under scrutiny. For anyone curious about that supposed 8pm dinghy sighting she mentions, a quick online search into the case timeline (like the detailed chronologies from supporter sites or court docs) shows no record of a light-colored dinghy motoring from Four Winds to the yacht club at that exact time with anyone suspicious, certainly nothing pointing to Sue.
What does come up is a sighting around 7:45-8:30pm of a Zodiac dinghy leaving the area with a single stocky male (described as late 40s-early 50s, reddish-brown hair, white shirt), which hardly fits her narrative.
More importantly, multiple witnesses reported a grey dinghy (not Four Winds’ white one) tied up to the yacht earlier, between 4-5:30pm, suggesting someone else was there when Bob was last seen alive around 5pm. Sue was accounted for at home during that 5-9pm window, per the records. This is all public info from sources like the Neill-Fraser Support Group chronology or Shadow of Doubt articles, easy to find with a Google search on “Sue Neill-Fraser timeline January 26 2009 dinghy sighting.”
An inquiry, as you point out, would finally sort through these facts without the speculation, but politicians like Archer and Albanese keep dodging it to protect their own establishments from embarrassment. Fake excuses indeed, accountability shouldn’t be optional. Keep pushing, Andrew!
Neill-Fraser claimed that she was at Bunnings for hours and returned home about the time it started getting dark!
Records show that the sunset was at around 8:40pm.
Since Bunnings closed at 6pm (and security videos didn’t show Neill-Fraser l) where was she given the sighting of that light-coloured zodiac motoring away from the location of Four Winds. The witness gave a time-frame of 7:45 pn – 8:30 pm. Suppose that it occurred at say 8:15 pm. Wouldn’t that mean that by the time that person got to the sailing club, walked to their car and drove a few kilometres to their home that their arrival at home would coincide with the time it was getting dark?
As if any of this actually mattered…
I was replying to Steven who thinks thst Neill-fraser was at home between 4pm and the time of the sighting of that person on a light coloured dinghy at between 7:45 – 8;30 pm!
Why don’t you correct him rather replying to me? I know that it’s your website but let others reply!
Neill-Fraser’s whereabouts during the above mentioned hours are critically important if we want to exclude her from being on Four Winds way past 4pm and at least until around 8pm.
Powell stated that, under certain conditions, a light-coloured dinghy can appear grey when viewed on water.
Anyone can test this claim by performing the following two simple observations, which involve opposite viewing geometries:
Perspective 1:
A white-coloured dinghy on the water is positioned such that the sun is behind the observer. Under this viewing geometry, the dinghy will appear white because the light reflected from the visible surface of the dinghy toward the observer’s eyes is stronger than the light reflected from the water.
Perspective 2:
A white-coloured dinghy on the water is positioned such that the sun is in front of the observer. Under this viewing geometry, the dinghy will appear a shade of grey because sunlight reflected from the water toward the observer’s eyes is stronger than the light reflected from the dinghy surface facing the observer. This is the effect of glare produced by strong specular reflection from the water.
The precise shade of grey will depend on the relative difference between the strength of the light reflected from the dinghy and the strength of the light reflected from the water.
If one examines the Trial Transcript concerning the orientation of Four Winds, together with the eyewitness statements describing a “grey dinghy” on the port side of Four Winds at approximately 3:55 pm and again at 5:00 pm, and then consults the astronomical charts for that day to determine the position of the sun, it becomes clear that the viewing geometry satisfies the conditions of Perspective 2.
As for the 5:30 pm witness, she was at least 600 metres away and was most likely observing a different vessel. From her location near the casino, she would not have been able to see the port side of Four Winds, nor would she have been able to reliably distinguish between an aluminium dinghy and an inflatable dinghy at that distance.
The above can be tested by you, Steven! It can be tested in an outdoor swimming pool! Too bad that that this simple scientific explanation wasn’t provided at the trial. This doesn’t require a Royal Commission!
You are very late in the game, Steven! Many of us have researched the case for a number of years via the Trial Transcript, 2012 Court of Appeal Decision, a vast number of online articles and comments including those by Barbara Etter, Eve Ash, etc.
As for the grey dinghy issue, you ought to do the experiment as suggested by Jenny. You can do it at sea, river or an outdoor swimming pool to convince yourself that a white object can appear to you do be grey if you are in a situation where there is strong light reflection from water towards your eyes when you are looking in the direction of a white object.
Note that a scientist by the name of Dr Peter Lozo (from Adelaide) explained this phenomena on Tasmania Times a decade ago.
Yes, Elise Archer used manifestly/apparently inadequate/phoney excuses to avoid action in the case of Sue Neill-Fraser, yet happily intervened in the case of Jari Wise. Then came her brittleness when her intra-office behaviour was challenged as bullying and offensive emails were leaked … her ‘sick of victim survivors’ comment. She was put out of the cabinet … she ‘spat the dummy’, left the party and not long afterwards left the parliament.
Yep, she denied Sue a Commission of Inquiry [CoI] – on specious grounds – now Albanese avoids one. I don’t have an opinion on whether there should be a Royal Commission for Bondi. As the Editor has pointed out, it would all depend on its terms of reference [ToR]. My own fear is that if what is the apparently dominant section of the Jewish community in conjunction with the Liberal Party were to succeed in a CoI being held, then they too might succeed in ensuring that one necessary ToR would not be included, namely:
I point out that it is wrong to discriminate and be prejudiced against people on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion etc. We should not regard Jewish people with opprobrium because they are Jewish – and I don’t do so. Yet I believe that it is permissible – and morally necessary – to criticise the actions and policies of those Israeli groups mentioned above and to oppose what is being done to the Palestine people, in Gaza, on the West Bank and in Israel itself (i.e. to ‘Arab-Israelis).
Let me return to the question of a Commission of Inquiry for Sue Neill-Fraser:
A path ahead…
POSSIBLE STEPS TO EXONERATION
– Commission of Inquiry
– Petition for Mercy made by Sue to the A.G.
– A-G refers case to CCA
– DPP & Police re-investigate the case, in the light of the COI findings.
– CCA hears ‘3rd Appeal’ – witnesses called re Inquiry matters.
The legal mechanism:
[see: section 419 Criminal Code Act 1924, Prerogative of mercy, quoted above.]
The exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy’ is not a pardon and involves no admission or assertion of guilt. ‘Mercy’, in this context, in my view serves as a device to act as a euphemism for conveniently allowing for a review (by the CCA) without anyone having to say outright ‘I think we stuffed up’.
I would also add that if a CoI is not obtained, there is nothing that I can see which prevents each and any of us from petitioning the Attorney-General to exercise his ‘prerogative of mercy’ and refer the matter back to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That is, to initiate a third appeal process.
Might I add – perhaps we should wait a little longer to see what eventuates from the recent ‘Etter-Selby’ papers tabled in the Parliament towards the end of last year (2025). Remember that they introduced the idea of a ‘second Sam’. What did that mean? That Vass’s “Sam did it!” wasn’t referring to Sam Devine, but rather, to another person called Sam? Or did it mean that there was another person, (different name) who was also involved … someone who Etter&Selby have found it convenient not to name at this stage of proceedings?
I don’t know the answer to these last questions. My own feeling is that there was a third person involved, someone who Meaghan Vass is particularly afraid of and doesn’t not dare to ‘blow the lid’ on. Readers will remember how Dtv. Inspector Peter Powell post-trial admitted:
[see: https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2022/03/30/did-inspector-powell-have-the-answers-in-the-murder-investigation-who-knows/%5D
I have the ‘feeling’ that this third person’s identity is known to the police, is known to the Crown and also known to some of Meaghan Vass’s friends/associates as well as to a few people in the wider community – but not many. I do not know if Sue knows of this third person, nor do I know if her Supporters Group is aware of that person. I believe that it is known how that person was able to access the Four Winds, known where the ‘grey dinghy’ came from, known how Meaghan left the boat and known what her subsequent movements were that night. … e.g. going to Pargeter’s, up near the bowling club.
I believe that there are witnesses who can tell us … but they will need protecting before we can hope to hear from them at a CoI. We’ve seen, for example, what police did to her after they became aware of the then upcoming 4 Corners interview, wasn’t it? Or the mishap that can occur when a lawyer forgets to ask a judge to restrict publication of certain evidence, or the persecution of other lawyers who were involved in the case. Then good-old Steve Gleeson who was enticed to change his plea (on one SNF-lawyer-related matter) in order to gain parole on that other violent assault for which he was at the time, in prison. Hmm…! How am I doing? Oops, oh, yes … almost forgot! Sue is now not allowed to communicate assertions of her innocence lest the Parole Board – which last year inserted such an extra condition into her parole – revokes her parole. Yes, and the few years that she has been out on parole, don’t count in any way … she would have to, from this point, serve the amount of time that was remaining of her sentence at the time of her release on parole in Oct 2022 – 10 more years.
You can’t make that sort of stuff up. This is how it is. How long can the lid be kept on all this before it blows?
Well put, Garry. And just to add, on Australia Day 2026, it will be 17 years since Bob Chappell disappeared from Four Winds. The furore around Sue Neill-Fraser’s questionable conviction has not subsided.
As I stated earlier, it wasn’t Vass motoring that light coloured Zodiac from the location of Four Winds towards the yacht club at around 8pm? Given that the last known perdon who was on Four Winds provided a false alibi during for the period of 4pm yo 9pm, and also had an unexplained injury that wasn’t there before the lunch, don’t you think that this evidence is more crucial than the identity of Vass’ associates? I would be far more concerned about the identity of that person on the light coloured motorised dinghy. Mr Gibson didn’t use it during the trial yo raise reasonable doubt. Is that because he believed the person to be Neill-Fraser?
This is all rather moot, in my opinion, since there is no evidence that was presented to the jury to support the guilty verdict.
Since Etter was Neill-Fraser’s solicitor for several years, it is highly likely that her and Selby’s report is biased. My assessment of their report is that it fails to address a critically important distinction between the scientific literature they cite and the actual Four Winds scenario:
The Four Winds scenario:
The biological material containing Vass’s DNA was exposed directly to sunlight during a period of very high UV Index. Solar UV radiation—particularly at high UV levels—causes rapid degradation of DNA.
Scenarios cited in the Etter & Selby report:
In the cited studies, the outdoor samples were either in shade, behind glass, or enclosed in glass containers. A simple review of the literature shows that glass significantly attenuates UV radiation, especially UV-C, the most destructive component of solar UV for DNA degradation.
As a result, none of the scientific literature cited by Etter & Selby addresses a scenario in which biological material is exposed directly to full sunlight under UV Index conditions comparable to mid-summer in Hobart (approximately 10).
Anyone who doesn’t have a scientific background to understand my comment can use AI to review the relevance of the Etter & Selby report to the Four Winds scenario.
And none of your comments address the elephant in the (court) room: no evidence of Sue Neill-Fraser murdering Bob Chappell.
In other words, you didn’t research the issue sufficiently to identify the error in my comment. I should have written UV-B, not UV-C. It is UV-B radiation that has a highly destructive and rapidly acting detrimental effect on DNA quality under direct sunlight exposure.
As for the evidence presented by the prosecution to the jury that led to Neill-Fraser’s conviction, the following points are the ones that convinced me:
False alibi (Bunnings)
Neill-Fraser provided a false alibi for the afternoon/early evening of the 26th (the so-called Bunnings alibi).
Lying about going out late at night
Neill-Fraser initially denied going out late at night. However, her absence from home coincided with the sighting of a female figure on a motorised inflatable dinghy travelling past the rowing shed in the direction of Four Winds at approximately 11:30 pm–12:00 am.
Unexplained injuries
Neill-Fraser had an unexplained cut to her finger and a wrapped wrist, neither of which were present in photographs taken at lunch on the 26th.
The rigged winch and contamination of evidence
The winch on the main mast had been rigged. On the afternoon of the 27th at Constitution Dock, when Neill-Fraser and family members were allowed to board the yacht to point out anything unusual, she touched the winch handle and removed it, stating that it “shouldn’t have been there.”
However, in her subsequent police statement, she claimed that the winch handle had been in its usual storage box when she left the yacht the previous afternoon. This raises an obvious question: why did she compromise the integrity of potential forensic evidence (fingerprints and DNA) by touching and removing the winch handle?
Had Neill-Fraser genuinely believed that someone else had boarded Four Winds and inserted the winch handle, it is highly unlikely she would have touched it, knowing this could corrupt critical forensic evidence.
Knowledge of the yacht’s plumbing
Locating the sea-cock required intimate knowledge of the yacht’s plumbing. Evidence was presented that Neill-Fraser had been shown the plumbing plans of the yacht.
Multiple contradictory accounts of returning to the riverbank
After eventually admitting that she did return to the riverbank late at night, Neill-Fraser repeatedly changed her account of how she got there. She gave three different versions:
(i) drove from home to the riverbank and then drove back home
(ii) drove to the riverbank and walked back home, leaving the car there
(iii) walked to the riverbank to retrieve the car, realised she had the wrong keys, walked home to get the correct keys, and then walked back again
When I combine all of the above with her false Bunnings alibi and her initial claim that she stayed home all night after returning around dusk, I conclude that Neill-Fraser was on Four Winds until about 8 pm and then returned later that evening for the purpose of winching Bob’s body, attempting to scuttle the yacht, and dumping his body some distance away from Four Winds.
Andrew: I understand why you wrote ‘no evidence’. I concluded that you don’t consider that the circumstantial evidence that was presented wasn’t sufficiently strong to convict Neill-Fraser. This is where we differ. Based on my review of all your articles (and most of your comments on the Neill-Fraser case), we also differ in the interpretation of many aspects of this case (including those aspects that came up lost-trial).
REJECTED (JK and JR and Jenny are the same person)
I would be far more interested in Neill-Fraser’s whereabouts and actions during a critical five hour period of 5pm – 9pm than a Royal Commission into her case. You see, an unknown person was spotted on a ligh-coloured dinghy motoring from the location of Four Winds towards the yacht club around 8pm.
Trying to protect the conviction with innuendo, Jenny, is no better than speculation a la prosecutor Ellis. Your little ‘club’ has no credibility. By the way, an inquiry would no doubt provide the details you seek.
You mean
‘trying to find the truth as to who was on that light coloured dinghy motoring away from the location of Four Winds towards the yacht club at around 8pm because that sighting coincided with the the time period when Neill-Fraser didn’t have an alibi’
All you seem to be interested in is advocating for Neill-Fraser instead of advocating for the truth about the whereabouts between 4pm and 9pm of the last known person who saw Bob alive in Four Winds. An inquiry won’t find any other person because there was only one person on that dinghy. It couldn’t have been Vass.
What I am interested in is the applying the rules: the accused doesn’t have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Reversing the onus of proof (as your insinuation does) is a dead give away.
Jenny, what is the source of your information? Is it just gossip or, for example, do you have access to official documents, e.g., police investigation reports and/or the like? Is so, then if it’s not just gossip, could you please disclose/publish it? I’m sure Andrew would happily publish it in the public interest. If not, you could send it to me and I’d put it out there via my Facebook at least.
Incidentally, for reasons of brevity – and confidentiality – in my earlier comment here, I did not give sources/references for each of the claims that I made in the last two paragraphs of my comment. I have transcripts of all the court hearings from the 2010 trial to the 2nd application to the HCA and other material which would enable me to do so. From memory, your assertion “an unknown person was spotted on a ligh-coloured dinghy motoring from the location of Four Winds towards the yacht club around 8pm.” seems to possibly fit with the evidence of Brent [last name withheld by me for respect for his privacy 8 years on] from Sandy Bay, who told the Supreme Court [2017 10 30] that his next-door neighbour had (on the night in question) been out the front putting stuff in his rubbish bin when he saw his next door neighbour, Simon Pargiter coming up the street from the Bowling Club short-cut with two males and a 14-15 year old girl [a photo of whom he identified in court – that girl in the photo wasn’t named, but it is clear from the context of the examination and cross-examination that it was Meaghan Vass.]. Pargiter told Brent that he’d been down [on ‘doggie beach’] at Short Beach, Sandy Bay with his dog and had encountered the two males and the 14-15 year old girl who had “come out of nowhere” on a dinghy onto Short Beach.
[from Supreme Court hearing the application for a 2nd appeal to take place,
[see: transcript NEILL-FRASER v STATE HOBART 2017 10 30, pp 41-52]
Jenny, I hope you can see why (if you have access to details of a person in a dinghy in the early evening before sunset), and see how it is relevant to establishing a more complete picture of what was happening at Short Beach on the night in question. It’s possible that you are just passing on unfounded and jumbled gossip – no offence meant, Jenny – and it’s also possible it is information that has a credible basis. I would like more details from you … e.g. who was it who saw an unknown person on a “ligh-coloured dinghy” [sic] – my feeling is that your information is not credible, yet ‘the ball’s in your court’… please show me how it is credible.
Incidentally, you made two comments before Christmas in relation to a comment made by me in a different article put up by Andrew. I am working slowly at responding to those two comments – it’s not an easy process sifting through your mainly unreferenced assertions (some on quite complicated case-law matters) and responding appropriately to them. I’m not halfway there yet!
My own interest in the case was early-on of a general nature … it was a mystery which led to an arrest … the arrest of and trial of SNF. I was still interested and, if I remember correctly, I followed the case through the media, then I think I began to strongly question the verdict after Tas Times published the trial transcript. And then I learnt for myself how Justice Blow had refused the application to recall Vass to the stand after Dtv. Sinnitt’s later evidence revealed that Vass’s whereabouts on the night in question were actually unknown … not at the refuge and her sleep-over address did not exist. The non-recall was in my opinion a miscarriage of justice.
I am wanting to find out the truth and will keep on looking for it, no matter which way the path leads.
Garry,
If you are after the truth then the first thing to do is to get independent review of some of your comments on Wrongful Convictions Report, and on the Tasmanian Times.
I used AI (ChatGPT) to review many of your comments. You are working from the position of a person who is avocating for Neill-Fraser. That is a stumbling block because it leads to various biases (cognitive bias, confirmation bias).
However, if you adjust to being an objective and unbiased person then your approach would be very different. Take for example Jenny’s approach. She recognises the significance of the witness statement regarding the sighting of a person on a light coloured motorised dinghy sometime during the time period 7:45 – 8:30 pm because (i) no-one came forward to identify themselves as being that person; (ii) the person on the dinghy was first spotted near the location of Four Winds and was seen travelling in the direction of the sailing Club.
Since the identity of that person is unknown it is reasonable to argue that whoever that was that the person was very likely on Four Winds shortly before being spotted on the dinghy. There was only one person on the dinghy. The dinghy was motorised. The dinghy was was light coloured zodiac. That witness statement (although not used during the trial) was actually available to both the prosecution and the defence team. The witness wasn’t called to provide testimony.
Why is the above very significant even though it wasn’t used at the trial? Because of the post-trial claims that Vass and her associates boarded Four Winds! But, if you recall what Vass said in Court during during the 2021 appeal prior to recanting: the dinghy they used had rowes; the boat they boarded was the first boat they came across and was about 20 metres from the shore.
Yawn