With nearly 40,000 verifiable signatures, the petition calling for a judicial inquiry into the contested conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell will be handed Tasmania’s MLC The Hon Meg Webb at the January 24, 2026 rally in Hobart’s Parliament Gardens, with the request to present it to Tasmanian Governor The Hon Barbara Baker AC and Premier Jeremy Rockcliff MP.
Started in 2013 by psychologist and filmmaker Eve Ash, the massive petition, which includes nearly 3,000 comments, is also addressed to Attorney-General The Hon Guy Barnett, and shadow AG The Hon Ella Haddad MP, Leader of the Opposition The Hon Josh Willie MP, and Leader of the Greens Rosalie Woodruff MP.
Signatures come from all over Australia and the world. 
Eve Ash has been a tireless campaigner for Neill-Fraser, first making the documentary, Shadow of Doubt, then the docuseries Undercurrent and latterly the podcast series, Who Killed Bob? all challenging the conviction with evidence that supports the view that she was wrongfully convicted.
petition comments
A small sample of the comments:
“This looks like the worst case of injustice since the Lindy Chamberlain case. Sue Neill-Fraser seems to have been convicted on absolutely no evidence. A Commission of Inquiry is urgently needed.”
“How can someone be tried and convicted when there is no body for a coroners inquest?”
“I believe there may have been a grave miscarriage of justice here. The evidence she has been convicted upon is very circumstantial and there is an absence of a body. Cant believe it has happened!”
“It is of the highest importance to be able to have faith in the Tasmanian legal system. This case raises doubts. To hold an enquiry is win-win. If it finds that the conviction be upheld, good at least we can feel the system is working.If not, then it is also good that an injustice had been rectified.”
“Incredibly DNA at the crime scene has not resulted in further investigation. Witnesses not called to give evidence. I could go on. This case was handled wrongly all the way. To me it seems to have been a witchhunt. Minds were made up regardless of the evidence available. ”
“I have looked at the evidence presented in the documentary ( or rather the lack of evidence ) and am shocked that some one can be convicted of murder when there is no proof that the fellow is even dead. To point the finger at the only person who probably loved him the most on this planet is outrageous. No one stays with a person for 20 years unless they deeply love them. It is a criminal act to charge this innocent woman and keep her locked up because she is obviously innocent of this alleged crime.”
Garry,
Regarding your paragraph
“There is an amount of information that has been gathered (since the failed 2nd Appeal) by Barbara Etter and which has formed the basis of MLC Michael Gaffney’s pro-inquiry Notice of Motion in the Upper House. I believe that this supports the scenario of an as-yet-unnamed (but known to police) person who has a history of stealing from boats, who had use of a grey dinghy: Colin McLaren gave him the nickname: ‘The Teenage Thief’.”
I wonder whether you are aware on Mr Selby’s online sentence
“So she got there on a grey dinghy with no outboard.”
When you combine that statement with Vass’ testimony that they found a dinghy at Sandy Bay beach, that the dinghy had oars, it tells you that Vass and her alleged male associates allegedly manually rowed from Sandy Bay beach to a boat that was very much closer to the shoreline than Four Winds. Given the windy conditions and very choppy river it is highly unlikely that they would have manually rowed some 300 metres to Four Winds not knowing whether there was a dinghy alongside it on the portside that they couldn’t see.
As for the Etter & Selby reports:
I read both of the Etter & Selby reports.
In their 194-page 2021 report, Mara House—a shelter where Vass had been staying—is mentioned 147 times. Yet, despite this repeated reference, the report does not state the critical fact of what time Vass left Mara House on the afternoon of Australia Day. This omission is striking, given that Etter and Selby argue that Vass and her associates travelled to Four Winds in a grey dinghy.
By contrast, their 74-page 2025 report mentions Mara House 33 times and does include the key detail that Vass left at 3:50 pm on 26 January. The report states:
“MV left the service at 3.50 pm on 26/1 and was to call with Sam’s phone number so worker could verify where she was before sleepover was actioned. Had not returned to the service by 5.40 and was breaching curfew and was not answering her phone.”
A similar statement appears again (p. 61). However, even when this timing is acknowledged, Etter and Selby do not address its implications. Mara House is approximately 7 km from Sandy Bay. Given this distance, it is not plausible that Vass could have been at the yacht Four Winds by 3:55 pm—the time when eyewitnesses first reported seeing a grey dinghy alongside the vessel. This unaddressed timing conflict is significant.
Equally notable are other omissions.
Etter and Selby do not discuss the rigged winch on the main mast, positioned in close proximity to the saloon’s starboard skylight hatch, with rope leading into the saloon. This feature is potentially important, particularly in light of Colin McLaren’s assessment that the body was likely removed through that skylight hatch. The absence of any discussion of this physical evidence is difficult to reconcile with a comprehensive review.
Etter & Selby also ignored inconsistencies in Vass’s own accounts. In her appearance on 60 Minutes, she claimed to have witnessed a violent altercation and “a lot of blood.” Yet in her 2021 court testimony, she stated that she remained on deck and did not see anything.
Etter & Selby also omitted Vass’ 2021 testimony where she said that the group found a dinghy with oars at Sandy Bay beach and manually rowed to a nearby boat—described as being about 20 metres offshore. This account sits uneasily with the location of Four Winds, which was moored approximately 300 metres from shore in what witnesses described as rough conditions.
Taken together, these omissions—timing inconsistencies, unaddressed physical evidence, conflicting accounts by Vass that don’t match the crime scene nor its geographical location —raise concerns about the completeness of the analysis presented in the Etter and Selby reports. A reader unfamiliar with the broader evidentiary context, such as members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, could reasonably accept the reports’ conclusions without being aware of these significant matters that cast a serious doubt on the burglary-gone-wrong argument.
Ps: if you aren’t aware of Mr Selby online statement I mentioned above then simply Google
‘Hugh Selby So she got there on a grey dinghy with no outboard.’
Comment rejected. The Vass DNA subject has been exhausted, as previously advised.
So you mention it in your article; John Biggs mentions it in his comment dated 24th January but I can’t address it nor am I allowed to direct readers to Lozo’s scientific comments at https://citynews.com.au/2026/rotten-to-its-core-no-saying-sorry-in-tasmanian-justice/.
That’s incredible! Only the supporters of Neill-Fraser are allowed to comment about Vass DNA!!!
Correct. (And please never refer to Peter Lozo and his ‘scientific comments’ again.)
A person trained in physics would often be better equipped than many non-scientists to critically assess research involving decay processes, because physics education commonly includes mathematics relating to exponential change, kinetics, half-lives, and data interpretation. Those skills can be highly relevant when evaluating claims about biological degradation processes such as DNA decay. Likewise, a background in mathematics and engineering can provide strong analytical tools for understanding published scientific literature, statistical claims, and graphical presentations of data.
As for Ms Meg Webb’s assertion that DNA decay is linear, that would generally be an oversimplification. In many real-world contexts, DNA degradation is more accurately described as non-linear and often approximates exponential decay, particularly when environmental stressors such as UV exposure, heat, moisture, oxidation, or microbial activity are involved. In such cases, degradation may occur relatively rapidly at first and then slow over time, depending on the substrate and conditions. It is therefore possible for someone viewing a logarithmic graph of DNA quantity versus time to mistakenly infer a straight-line (linear) decline, when in fact the straight line on a log-scale graph may indicate exponential decay on a normal scale.
If you are writing to Ms Meg Webb or anyone else on the topic then inform them that DNA degradation kinetics is non-linear.
Oh well, now that you’ve revealed your PhD we will all shut up…Peter Lozo tried the same move, impressing readers with his superior scientific learning. How pathetic.
A scientific comment is an evidence-based observation or critique concerning a scientific claim, study, method, or conclusion. It relies on facts, data, logic, and established scientific principles rather than personal opinion. Such comments are intended to assess whether a statement is accurate, whether the available evidence supports the conclusion, or whether alternative explanations should be considered. A proper scientific comment is typically objective, precise, and open to scrutiny. It may identify methodological flaws, question assumptions, correctly interpret graphs or data, or compare claims with existing research. In short, it is a reasoned technical evaluation made according to scientific standards.
My own PhD is in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. I also have a strong background in mathematics and have studied physics to second-year degree level. I am therefore in a sufficiently strong position to assess whether Lozo’s comments constitute a reasoned technical evaluation according to scientific standards, particularly in light of the audience he was addressing.
His explanation of visual perception in relation to the issue of the grey dinghy considered the relevant physical and geographical factors and integrated them with his understanding of human visual perception – which he apparently gained via his PhD research From what I have read, he also used AI to assist hum in reviewing the scientific literature on DNA decay. His summary was sufficiently simple for a general audience while still capturing the essential features of DNA degradation. I also viewed his more detailed scientific analysis on his FB.
What happened to your PhD? No matter. I have little respect for those ‘convictioners’ (including your mentor Peter Lozo) who nibble away at various aspects of the case, notably the matter of the Vass DNA, trying to undermine claims of Sue Neill-Fraser’s innocence. The thrust of the messaging is to (metaphorically) keep Vass off the boat – her presence at the crime scene destroys the prosecution’s already unmeritorious case. This is at best mistaken, at worst dishonest.
Claims of authority via scientific qualifications to buttress these efforts are nothing more than grandstanding. Nor do those scientifically superior comments address the absence of credible evidence.
We’ve published over 35 of your comments to date but have run out of patience and will not publish any more. You can always join Lozo on his FB.
Andrew Urban,
Why for goodness sake do you need to interject each time when I submit a reply to other people???
LET OTHER PEOPLE REPLY TO ME!
I an not discussing Neill-Fraser’s innocence or guilt.
I am discussing whether or not Vass’ testimony (and her 60 Minutes story) matches the evidence; whether the alleged thieves would really row to Four Winds in such rough river condition; whether the comments by Neill-Fraser’s supporters (Garry Stannus, John Biggs) is supported or is it just a delusional belief, etc.
Please stay away from my comments that are meant as replies to other people. If you wish to interject then first educate yourself on the trial evidence, and Vass’ testimony in the Court during March 2021. Why was it necessary for Garry to help you to understand several months ago that Neill-Fraser’s legal team said that there was no evidence of a vomit; why didn’t you know that Vass’ testimony was that the boat they boarded was about 20 metres from the shore, etc, etc.??
Andrew,
Garry Stannus has a hypothetical version that “starts at the river edge above Hobart … leads downstream in a grey dinghy piloted by the teenage thief … collects MV and ?”
Did he forget the wind chart which showed that the wind was blowing from south -south east; that the wind speed was in excess of 30 km/hour; that Vass’ testimony is that they found the dinghy at Sandy Bay beach and that it had oars?
The Members of the Legislative Council would want something far more substantial and concrete in order to convince the Tasmanian Government to spend a huge amount of money on an Commission of Inquiry. It is very doubtful whether the Etter & Selby reports are sufficient. Garry Stannus may wish for there to have been a more robust version that is believable. I have a far more believing version:
Vass and her male associates hang around the Sandy Bay beach with Stephen Gleeson. They see a person on a motorised dinghy leaving Four Winds at around 8pm. They watch that person (Neill-Fraser) tie her dinghy. After Neill-Fraser leaves in her car the group get into Neill-Fraser’s dinghy and motor it to Four Winds. It’s not choppy because the wind died down by 7:30 pm. They board Four Winds. Etc. Etc.
See my previous reply.
You replies are pure and desperate nonsense that won’t pass the vote in the Legislative Council.
Why has Sue Neill Frazer not been given justice it would have been impossible for her to lift her husband.
Why haven’t the Tasmanian government looked into this case .
It’s a shocking miscarriage of justice.
Why wasn’t the homeless girl investigated? Also other information given by other members of the public.
All very good questions. There are no very good answers.
Why didn’t you mention to Josephine the rigged winch on the main mast?
Every time someone questions Neill-Fraser’s ability to “lift” then you should immediately remind that person about the rigged winch on the main mast.
Thanks Donald. Reminds me of the story about Harry who often urged his rich uncle George to mention Harry in his will. On George’s death the will was read out, in which the will said “I now mention Harry…hello Harry.”
Does it remind you of very choppy Derwent River with waves up to 3 feet high? You really think that Vass and her alleged male accomplices manually rowed 300 metres to Four Winds in such rough conditions given that there were many other boats that were very much closer to the shore? Quick escape!
There is no suggestion they rowed 300 metres … they came from a nearby boat owned by one of them. But please note, we are not going to regurgitate all the details of the case – many of the aspects having been made up by the prosecution. Life’s too short.
We demand justice for Sue Neil Fraser
The Neill-Fraser case will be regarded as the lowest point in the Tasmanian Justice system. Blind vindictiveness all the way, wuith no regard to the evidence even the obvious DNA splash on Chappell’s boat; the admission by Vass that she saw the murder then retracted when vicously bullied by the Prosecuting counsel, Coates. What a scandal.
Finally someone spells it out for what it is…. well done John…. 100% correct.
Vass said that they boarded the first boat they came across and that it was only 20 metres from the shoreline. How then could she have seen the murder that occurred in a boat that was 300 metres from the shoreline?
Please quote the reference for your comment.
2nd Appeal: Transcript: first day (2021 03 01) pp53 ll30-45 – p54 ll1-3:
First thing to note is that Vass has already been asking how long she’ll have to be in the court … then Coates tells Wood J that his questioning of Vass might continue into a second day. She’s already been through Richter’s(!) objecting to her having Andy Brown sit with her for support while she’s giving evidence … and Brown being not allowed into the room where she (MV) was to give her evidence. Second thing to note is that (without foundation) Coates asks her if the yacht was 20m out from the shore – and Vass agrees – perhaps she was trying to just get the questioning finished by giving an answer which would not entail another question. For example, if she’d said ‘No’ to the 20m question, you’d think Coates would have asked he a series of questions … e.g. ‘was it closer to shore or further out than 20m?’ or ‘ was it perhaps 50m out?’ or even ‘was it 300m out from the shore?’
And also, why did Coates suggest 20m as the distance of the yacht from the shore, when its distance was known to be out at the furthest line of moorings?
I was present in the courtroom during this cross-examination of Vass, and my impression of her evidence was that she didn’t have a clue how far out the Four Winds was. I had much the same feeling as to her ‘lots of blood’ account of the fight which left Bob Chappell dead – I felt that she hadn’t actually witnessed it. I guess my impression at the time was that she had constructed a mental picture of the bare bones of the yacht being off the shore at Sandy Bay, of vomiting on the deck after seeing the fight/the blood, and not having an accurate take on the age/s of Gleeson and/or Wroe. In retrospect I have wondered if those mental pictures were formed by the discussions with Colin McLaren, perhaps he put suggestions to her which she took on board (internalised?) – formed mental images of different questions he may have put to her and that these somehow got stored as memories … just like Sue herself said: “The trouble is if you talk about something enough it becomes a memory” – Court Transcript [2010 10 11: p1182 2].
Perhaps Meaghan does not have a memory of being at Sandy Bay on 26Jan2009 and perhaps was try8ing to fill in the dots … like in the form of ‘I must have been there with such and such…’ ‘We must have used a dinghy to get out there…’, ‘it would have been not far out from….’ and so on. [a ‘must have been’ type of memory?]
I am not saying that Meaghan wasn’t on the yacht that day/night. Actually, I think that she was there, but in circumstances some of which she doesn’t remember and some of which she has been unwilling to speak about.
There is an amount of information that has been gathered (since the failed 2nd Appeal) by Barbara Etter and which has formed the basis of MLC Michael Gaffney’s pro-inquiry Notice of Motion in the Upper House. I believe that this supports the scenario of an as-yet-unnamed (but known to police) person who has a history of stealing from boats, who had use of a grey dinghy: Colin McLaren gave him the nickname: ‘The Teenage Thief’.
Moreover, I believe that – unknown to police or to Etter-Selby-Gaffney – there are witnesses who at a Commission of Inquiry could throw light on some of Meaghan’s movements on the night in question, who could give information about a Mara House connection to Sandy Bay and who could corroborate claims that Meaghan Vass did know Paul Wroe … who had the yacht moored near the Four Winds.
There is a trail, I believe, which starts at the river edge above Hobart … leads downstream in a grey dinghy piloted by the teenage thief … collects MV and ? … steals on board the FW … the fight, Vass is taken ashore (and Wroe on the yacht next door then enlisted to remove the body?) and Vass, with others walks up the Margaret St short cut through the Bowling Club (leaving the boat’s red jacket on the brick fence on the way) ending up at Pargetter’s till later Vass turns up back at Mara!
An Inquiry must be held to tie these things together, to find out which are real, what is the truth – the whole truth – and to let Justice prevail.
The trial went wrong when Justice Blow would not allow the application to recall Vass … the first Appeal? (I’m tempted to call it a ‘whitewash’), the hearings in support of the second appeal application were creditable for the material that was brought into the court, the 2nd Appeal itself was a disaster and the leave applications to the High Court were rejected in the usual and perverse HCA manner. Inquiry Now!
Thanks Garry, you have captured the essence of the Vass testimony – and the context.
You appear to have overlooked the portion of Meaghan Vass’s testimony in which she stated that they found a dinghy on Sandy Bay beach, and that it already had oars in it. Her account therefore clearly refers to a dinghy that was manually rowed.
When that evidence is considered alongside the tide chart and wind chart for the afternoon of 26 January 2009, as well as the consistent eyewitness descriptions of choppy conditions on the River Derwent, a number of practical constraints emerge. Given the south-east orientation of Four Winds at its mooring, an observer approaching from the Sandy Bay shoreline would not have had a line of sight to the port side of the vessel. Consequently, such a person would have been unable to determine whether a dinghy was already alongside.
In those circumstances, it is highly implausible that an alleged group of opportunistic thieves would have selected Four Winds as a target and then proceeded to row a dinghy approximately 300 metres in rough, wind-affected water—without even knowing whether the vessel was already occupied or had a tender alongside. A far more likely course of action would have been to target one of the many vessels much closer to shore, enabling rapid access and retreat. Attempting a 300-metre return journey in such conditions would have carried a significant risk of swamping, capsize, or being thrown overboard, making Four Winds an unlikely and impractical choice.
As with so many comments from those trying to protect the conviction, Donald fusses with trivia that has no relevance to the absence of evidence to justify Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction.
Andrew,
It’s now 5 years since Neill-Fraser’s 2nd Appeal. You are probably the only person who is still stuck on a version of story that Vass and her alleged male accomplices first went to another boat (Wroe’s boat) and from there they went to Four Winds!
Why don’t you publish Vass’s 2021 testimony regarding the dinghy and the boat they allegedly boarded?
See comment by Garry Stannus.