Andrew L. Urban
I just have to share this with readers who may have missed it. In recent weeks, a number of comments have turned up on previous stories about the Sue Neill-Fraser case. It’s been 16 years since the abomination of her trial and wrongful conviction (and she is now out of prison on parole), and still there are those who are obsessed with some aspects of the case. None more vividly than to continue the prosecution’s fevered attempts to ‘keep Vass off the boat’, as I first called in March 2021. The most recent yesterday. The only reason I raise it again is to share my amazement at the repeated but irrational efforts to save the prosecution from the massive embarrassment of having been found out about how this sausage (wrongful conviction) was made.
So here is the short version. (See the link above for the longer version.)
Meaghan Vass was a homeless 16 year old drug user at the time of Bob Chappell’s disappearance on Australia Day 2009, from the Four Winds yacht he jointly owned with Neill-Fraser. She was hanging around with youths around the Hobart waterfront, with leisure activities such as looting yachts for saleable items, to bankroll the purchase of drugs and alcohol.
At Neill-Fraser’s trial in 2010, Vass was called as a witness, her DNA having been found on the deck of Four Winds, but she denied having been on the yacht. The prosecutor, then Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis SC, denigrated the DNA evidence as a red herring.
Cut to the chase…(this is the very short version). A few years later Vass confessed both in an affidavit and in a tearful interview with Liam Bartlett on 60 Minutes, that yes, she was on the yacht at the relevant time with two male accomplices, having boarded without realising someone was on board, there being no dinghy alongside. (Neill-Fraser had gone ashore in it.) That someone was Bob Chappell, working below deck. When he confronted the surprised youths, a fight broke out … Vass fled. Obviously, Sue Neill-Fraser was not present. She did not murder Bob Chappell. That’s why ever since, the machinery behind the legal cohort who made the mistake of framing Neill-Fraser – and their proxies/supporters – has been and still is desperate to ‘keep Vass off the boat’.
To accept any of the various bits of speculation as to how Vass was not on board, or that her DNA was deposited later, we would have to accept that after Vass denied being there at the trial, she changed her mind and for reasons we cannot fathom, she chose to insert herself into the case with testimony that confirmed that she was, thus proving Neill-Fraser’s innocence. On 60 Minutes she admitted it risked repercussions from the youths with her at the time.
The fact Neill-Fraser was not on board at the time also scotches the implausible scenarios that have on one hand wanted ‘Vass off the boat’ and Neill-Fraser ON the boat.
(You can feel some sympathy for the poor old Moderator of this blog having to constantly bat away bat-crazy comments like these. I fear there’s another batch coming …)
You see, Andrew, these ‘Sue-did-it’ types are just bottom-feeders … feeding on the misguided scraps that their progenitor has offered them … detritus like the ‘chewy-on-your-boot’ theory which morphed into the ‘seagull-dropped-a-load’ theory. All the product of ‘scientific analysis’ of course … not! The single-person boom + winch theory … not actually supported by much in the way of evidence. Correct me if I’m wrong … but there was also the rival winch-the-body-through-the-cockpit theory entertained by both the boss and by the police for some time, until canned by Klaus Haeussler – thus two different-winch accounts. The scrape marks on the saloon hatch … suggestive of the rope around Bob’s body coming up at an angle, perhaps … and the body that it was around … thus disposed to jamming on the side of the hatch unless pulled sideways by a second person while the other is up there at the winch. A one person job? Nope. Pardon my speculations … this is why we need an Inquiry.
And this last apparatchik: who writes “I am thoroughly familiar with the trial testimony of John Hughes” and notes that “He saw am [sic] inflatable dinghy. He heard it’s [sic] motor.”
I’ve no wish to reflect personally on the witness, John Hughes, however, it must be said that his evidence at trial was characterised by lack of certainty … some of it in the way of the ‘I would have been’ and ‘I must have been’ type and others of the ‘probably’ and ‘may have’ type:
“I played golf in the afternoon, probably until fairly late –
Yeah.…….- and then I may have gone to the movies or to the Casino, but I can’t remember exactly which.”
“did you stay in the car, do you recall?……I may have got out of the car at some stage to stretch my legs.”
“The person had the outline of a female, but I can’t be definite.”
“Did you hear anything that was associated with seeing the dinghy?……There was an outboard on the back.” [see my Notes below]
“Did you see anyone else down there that night?……No.
Anyone standing around fires?……No, I can’t remember though.”
“You probably only watched it for a few seconds, is that a fair comment?……It wouldn’t have been any more than a minute.
Yes, probably less than that?……I can’t remember.”
“And you just formed the impression that it was a woman?……It had the outline of a female.
But you can’t be sure about that one hundred percent, can you?……I can’t be definite.”
“What about the colour of the outboard?……I can’t remember.”
“Were there any other cars parked in the area of the rowing sheds that you can remember now?……No.
You can’t remember that or you don’t know?……No, there weren’t any other cars parked there.”
“If I was to suggest to you there were other vehicles parked in the area of the rowing sheds would you deny that?……I can’t remember any vehicles parked there.”
“But you’re not prepared to say emphatically that there weren’t others there?……Not one hundred percent.”
“But within this half hour gap you can’t place the time when you saw that dinghy go out?……No, I can’t remember.”
“Now did you get out of your car at all that night?……I think I did.”
“Well you have on a previous occasion said – …..But I can’t absolutely remember.”
“And when you saw this dinghy were you inside your vehicle or outside your vehicle?……I think I was outside but I can’t be absolutely sure.”
“And were you standing near your car when you saw the dinghy?……I would have being [sic: read ‘been’?] standing next to it.”
“Well you say you would have[.] I’m really trying to ask you to recall what you actually remember. When you saw – take yourself back, when you saw the dinghy were you standing in front of the car, to the side of the car or had you moved away from it?……I would have being [sic: read ‘been’?] standing next to the car because I would have got out of the car just to stretch my legs.”
“Do you recall how long you’d been there before the dinghy arrived on the scene?…….No, I can’t remember.”
“It is possible that whilst you were there that other persons were in the area of the sheds?……No, I can’t remember anybody else.”
“Well do you say that definitely nobody else was around those sheds or are you saying, “Now I can’t remember any”?………No, I’m almost one hundred percent definite.”
“People could have been behind you and you wouldn’t necessarily have noticed them?……Well that’s possible, but unlikely.”
“The dinghy was – more correctly the outboard of the dinghy was obviously making sufficient noise to draw your attention to it?……I heard it, I heard an outboard.”
“Did you hear the outboard before you sighted the dinghy?……I can’t remember.”
NOTES:
Expressions of the ‘would have been’ type are not drawn from memory – they are attempts to explain what is not remembered … what ‘might have been’, what ‘could have been’, what ‘must have been’ etc.
According to various evidences, Steve Gleeson’s yellow car and a land cruiser type vehicle were present by the rowing club sheds … the former possibly by the water, or maybe over in the alcove with the other vehicle … whose owner had been living in it, but had gone to NZ.
Hughes sees a dinghy, hears what he calls an outboard (motor). In the comments made by the ‘Sue-did-it’ types, no reference is (ever) made to the evidence of John Brettingham-Moore (at one of the leave-to-2nd appeal hearings) who testified that at the time that Hughes was having his ‘Farmers Union’ drink, he – Brettingham-Moore – was in his boat, nearby, motor running while trying to approach the marina in the dark, then anchoring just outside it. Sound travels over water… Neither do these types mention the (leave-to-2nd-appeal hearing) evidence of Grant Maddock, who at the time in question was in his dinghy, returning to his yacht which was anchored outside the marina (in line beyond the dinghy that Mr Hughes saw that night. On the way, he went approached Brettingham-Moores’s motor cruiser to offer a hand by guiding him.
No, Andrew, none of such matters ever get a mention because with rare exception, ‘these types’ have relied on just the trial transcript, the newspaper reports and the snippets they’ve gleaned from free-to-air documentaries like Undercurrent.
No, neither will you hear from them discussion as to the initial Hughes account which it is believed described a dinghy being rowed out from the area near the RYCT. No, and then when police put it to Sue that a woman had been seen rowing out in a dinghy, and she replied to the effect that it couldn’t have been her, because the Four Winds tender had no rowlocks [!] … then the Hughes account is said to have changed. He now said that he saw a dinghy and heard an outboard.
My examination of Hughes’ testimony leads me to wonder to what degree might Mr Hughes have been coached (during briefing?) and whether he had been counselled to use the ‘don’t remember’ type response liberally when giving evidence. His “There was an outboard on the back” smacks to me of a measure of defensive explanation in his answer as to a question as to what he had heard. He did not seem to actually claim to have seen the outboard … but rather, he answered the ‘what did you hear’ question by saying something like ‘it had an outboard’, rather than I saw an outboard. Then the issue was skirted around by gunson at his XXN best, giving this unsighted outboard a de facto existence by getting Hughes to say that couldn’t tell what colour it was – Zinger, Mr Gunson!
To conclude, my view is that in the dark, and at 50+ metres distance, Mr Hughes saw a dinghy being rowed/sculled by Grant Maddock (who had thick, shoulder-length hair at the time) and at the same time heard the noise of John Brettingham-Moore’s motor-cruiser’s (marine) engine as it hovered outside the marina, about to anchor. Mr Hughes had the impression that the occupant of the dinghy (Maddock with his long, thick hair) might have been a woman
“You’ve previously said of the description, “I thought the person had
an outline of a female. I had the feeling that this person was a
female. I can’t be definite, it was dark”?…….Yes.
Thank you. And that’s still your position, isn’t it?…….Yes.”
I think that it was the thick long hair that Hughes saw (the ‘outline’ of a female) that in the dark, and at a distance, caused him to think it may have been a woman.
[see image of Grant Maddock, then with long hair in his dinghy:
[ https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/d0db043c7fdb932195ad6a5e250a20ef ]
Why would a young woman place herself in a precarious legal position by saying she was on the boat when Bob was killed? That would be risky for her to subsequently face serious charges perhaps resulting in prison. Also, & importantly, she would be at risk of violent repercussions from those she identified in her testimony under oath as being the perpetrators of the murder. That would be a double whammy, & the only reason I can come up with is that she can’t get it out of her mind, along with the guilt.
Fiona Peate, you may be seeing only one side of it.
You assume the “double whammy” means she must have been there and was carrying guilt. But there’s another side to the coin. A young woman caught up in drugs and rough company can be pressured into repeating a story that suits others. Then later, when she realises lying under oath can bring serious consequences, she pulls back and changes course.You seem to be judging it as if she were a stable young person making clear-headed choices. I’d look at it through the lens of someone vulnerable, chaotic, and open to coercion.
That’s why the real test is not emotion or guesswork. It’s whether her claims fit the known crime scene evidence and its location.
And the other thing to avoid is speculation …
Comment rejected; email address could not be verified.
There seems to be something of a ‘pile-on’, Andrew. I’ve not responded to the various recent comments that have been made by an apparent cohort of ‘Sue-did-it’ types. I don’t know who they are … and feel that I’ve seen this sort of thing before on WCR … a seeming concerted effort to swamp any pro-Sue material with tid-bits, scraps and ‘what about the …?’ type statements.
Some of the things that they have written, I agree with, but these are not matters that I think are crucial. I’ve not wanted to respond directly to these commenters because I’m unsure as to who they are … using names which appear nowhere else on the internet and that sort of thing. And we’ve seen in the past how some have actually sought to hide their true identities, using multiple personae etc.
Too many – in my opinion – come on WCR to assert an established point of view regarding Sue’s innocence or guilt. I would respond perhaps to some of these recent comments if I thought that they were from people who were genuinely seeking to understand the case. But they seem, in posting comments to WCR, to have already formed a ‘Sue is guilty’ view.
Me? I guess I had no fixed point of view back in the day. Then (on Tas Times) Ben Lohberger made the claim that SNF supporters were cherry-picking from the trial transcript (or some such thing) and that the transcript should be made available to him (and to the public at large). To her credit – please correct me if I’m wrong – Barbara Etter [BE] was instrumental in the transcript being released publicly (via Tasmanian Times). It was then that I was able to read the evidence of Meaghan.Vass, then the subsequent ‘sleepover’ evidence given by Dtv. Sinnitt … and of the following Defence request – refused by Justice Blow – to have Vass recalled to the stand. I regarded that refusal as a denial of justice, as a miscarriage of justice [MoJ]. That MoJ has remained unremedied in all the years since. ‘Justice’ as a concept embodies ‘fairness’. The refusal to allow Vass to be recalled was not – in my opinion – fair to Sue Neill-Fraser, the accused.
Andrew, Meaghan’s Leave-to-2nd-Appeal hearing evidence and then her 2nd Appeal evidence fiasco is not – and should not be – the final word on her DNA being on the boat. You yourself subsequently obtained from Meaghan an affirmation of the truth of her evidence of being on the yacht, the Four Winds. I myself am aware of persons (not identified or known to the Court) who could provide ‘in camera’ evidence to a Commission of Inquiry [CoI] as to the movements of MV on 26-27Jan2009 and as to her knowing Paul Wroe, the criminal with a record for violence, who had his own yacht, Southern Wright, moored in the vicinity of the Four Winds.
There are other matters that I’d like to refer to here, but will not do so, for a range of reasons, including unleashing possible police responses … not to myself, personally, but that they will seek to find ways of discrediting the above and other matters. Look, we saw how MV was picked up after she had first admitted being on the FW, busted for having a bit of dope in her bag … and how TasPol then claimed she’d made certain admissions to them … this police claim was later refuted by the prosecutor in court (hearing the dope charge). We saw the clandestine ‘response’ Colin McLaren received when he came to Hobart, and how when giving his hearing evidence he seemed to be all-but-accused by DPP Coates – albeit incorrectly – of breaking the law by acting as a private investigator (he believed ‘they’ were out to get him and wisely, he was able to give his evidence from Melbourne, I think it was). We saw Eve Ash’s offices raided in Sydney and her investigative material seized by court order – that was a TasPol response too, wasn’t it? We’ve seen the failed ‘pervert justice’ response against Jeff Thompson, and the willingness of Steven Gleeson to do a deal to testify a certain way in return for parole from his imprisonment for an unrelated extremely-violent attack on an associate/friend… But then, we saw that with Mr Triffett too, didn’t we…? We saw, did we not, a ‘response’ in the harassment of BE … ? And yet we wait to see the outcome of the legal action – the plaint – against the ‘response’ of the Parole Board in threatening SNF with a return to prison if she directly or indirectly communicates to the media – and to others – that she is innocent.
This is not how you do justice … these establishment responses. I believe that I’m a reasonable person and have informed myself as much as I can on Bob Chappell’s murder, on the investigation that followed it, the legal process that ensued including the appeals, the leave-to hearings, the HCA leave applications and the case law that is cited around the traps. I have reasonable doubt as to the correctness of Sue’s conviction – I have never been convinced of her guilt. The ‘extra’ information that would exonerate Sue, exists. In my opinion, for fear of the sort of responses we’ve seen above, it can’t be dealt with by TasPol … they are already aware of some of it, but not (apparently) all of it. … No: I advocate a CoI as a way forward, as a way of allowing the truth of the matter to be established. The inquisitorial nature of a CoI would provide a better climate for these yet-unheard-from witnesses to come forward and contribute their individual pieces to the jig-saw puzzle that is the murder of Bob Chappell. I assert that these are not ‘hypothetically-possible’ witnesses, but that they are real, actual persons with real, actual information to give … in camera. Other material that hasn’t been examined by the Supreme Court, by the HCA or by TasPol exists. It will throw light on MV’s movements on the days in question and provide material benefit in the search for the truth. It is extremely unfortunate that TasPol cannot now be entrusted to investigate the matter. No, that time has long gone.
I would hope, Andrew, that along with Sue’s supporters, those that belong to the ‘Sue-is-guilty’ camp would welcome a CoI as being the pathway to settle all the questions, the unresolved mess that the trial, the first appeal, the leave-to-appeal application to the HCA, the hearings for the 2nd appeal, the second appeal itself and the second leave-to-appeal application to the HCA – all in their adversarial inadequacies – that a CoI could provide us with a pathway out of this mess.
Inquiry now! And we wait for MLC Michael Gaffney’s pro-Inquiry motion in the Upper House of the Parliament to be debated – presently it is in abeyance.
Thanks Garry for this excellent summary of a legal catastrophe with its human victims, chiefly Sue, but not only. The ‘Sue did it types’ as you call them, are vexatious agitators with no real interest in the truth; there’s something unsavoury in their tone. I no longer have any hope that Tasmania’s legal and political establishment will allow a CoI for the toxic sludge that will pour out of it and smother their reputations. I hope I can be proved wrong about a CoI …
Just FYI, I will now (again) close comments on the VASS DNA topic as it brings out the most irrational cohort.
Comment rejected; email address could not be verified.
Garry – As if on cue … a few hours after your comment yesterday (22 April) re the identity hiding of some commenters, the result of our generic email test re Nick I., sent at 6:45pm 21 April came back as undeliverable at 9:06pm from the Mail Delivery Subsystem. His last two comments were thus rejected as his email address could not be verified.
Andrew,
I don’t understand the purpose of your comment
“There you go! It isn’t hard to say “it was Meaghan Vass’ DNA on Four Winds.” That is the central point, not where or what.”
The dispute isn’t whether or nor it was Meaghan’s DNA on Four Winds. Neither Lozo nor Donald nor anyone else who commented on this case ever doubted as to whose DNA was in Sample 20.
The prosecution case is that it wasn’t a direct deposit by Meaghan Vass on the Australia Day.
The defense case is that it was a direct deposit by Meaghan Vass on the Australia Day,
The dispute is thus how it got there and when it got there.
My understanding is that Lozo researched the scientific literature independently of Etter & Selby and probably to a greater depth given that he is a scientist. His opinion is that the scientific literature doesn’t support Etter & Selby’s claim that the DNA was on Four Winds for up to three or more days. He discusses the decay rates under solar UV exposure and had referred to experimental data that Etter & Selby hadn’t referenced in their 2025 report.
Anyway, the science of DNA decay, etc is beyond this blog
The prosecution managed to hoodwink some people to question how the deposit might have got there. When it might have got there. Maybe a one legged copper dragged it on board … and then flew away….
Here I am getting dragged back into the rabbit hole of the Vass DNA against my own advice…I have to stop now. It’s an endless wormhole. Adios…
Just a reminder to readers why all this argy bargy commentary about Vass being on board as a witness at the scene. It highlights the fatal threat to the prosecution’s case: her presence negates the narrative presented at trial and proves Sue Neill-Fraser is not guilty.
But there is much more that invalidates the fairness of the trial, from the prosecutor’s speculation to impermissible forensic evidence.
Those issues are not coming from my “bias” but detailed in legal opinion, as we have reported.
Hmm.
Didn’t Sue Neill-Fraser’s barrister, Robert Richter KC, drop Meaghan Vass as a witness on the second day of the March 2021 appeal? He also told the Court that the defence would not rely on her testimony, before repositioning the case around the DNA evidence rather than her story.
Too bad that Mr Richter did not learn from Mr Percy’s experience in 2017. I recall reading comments on your website in 2019 where some wise people predicted that she would recant under cross-examination again. You were not very happy with that person’s prediction!
When will Andrew Urban learn to let go of Meaghan Vass?
I wrote that the police matched the DNA to Vass… Surely you know that.
Dear Mr Urban,
Did you notice that ChatGPT used the term ‘confirmation bias’ only once. It concluded that you have confirmation bias.
Try another LLM model if you prefer.
I suggest my ‘bias’ is based on facts – as per the story on which this comment is made.
Well then let’s see:
Since the fact is that Vass left Mara House in New Town at 3:50 pm
and
since the fact is that Conde saw a grey dinghy at portside of Four Winds at 3:55 pm
do you think that Meaghan Vass was on Four Winds at 3:55 pm?
Irrelevant
Really? You can’t possibly be this ignorant? Really?!?!!
Yes I am really ignorant! I really need AI to boost by IQ to 100 so that I stand an average chance of understanding what you are implying!
Are you familiar with the trial testimony of John Hughes?
I am thoroughly familiar with the trial testimony of John Hughes. He saw am inflatable dinghy. He heard it’s motor.
Since you are smarter than me perhaps you can figure out what I am driving at. Try first reading Eve Ash list and see which point my comment relates to,
Dear Mr Nick.
My particular AI friend is quite sure that Meagan Vass was on the yacht with friends and vomited on the deck ! Leaving behind a nice DNA puddle and a blue face wiping cloth. Thinks it’s ludicrous – the suggestion that Meagan would make a statement like that..if not true! Call it AI logical.
Really,
No evidence of vomit!
Did you look at various online photographs of Four Winds from the morning of 27th? I did. There was a police boat tethered to the starboardside gate of Four Winds throughout that morning and early afternoon, police officers boarded Four Winds via that starboard boarding gate. That boarding gate is exactly where location 11 was (the location where Sample 20 was swabbed a few days later).
You do know that a vomit is sticky and contains food particles.
None of the police officers reported seeing any sign of vomit. The forensic scientist didn’t report any sign of vomit.
Neill-Fraser’s barrister (Mr Richter) conceded in 2021 that there was no evidence of vomit.
Etter & Selby in their 2025 report say that it was saliva.
Someone recently posted a comment that had it been saliva that the DNA would have been destroyed by the acid in saliva.
You can ask your friend to report it to the police and to Barbara Etter.
It had already been posted several weeks ago that the blue face washer was DNA tested in early 2019. It had DNA of the first responder. No DNA of Vass.
I suggest that you update your knowledge.
The correct paragraph is
Someone recently posted a comment that had it been vomit that the DNA would have been destroyed by the acid in the vomit
But of course police matched the DNA found on the deck with Vass…
Yes. The whole world that heard of this case knows that it was Meaghan Vass’ DNA on Four Winds.
But it wasn’t due to her vomiting at that location. Her story of vomiting was an invention of xx. I won’t say his name but it is in his book.
There you go! It isn’t hard to say “it was Meaghan Vass’ DNA on Four Winds.” That is the central point, not where or what.
Dear poor old moderater. Have you ever contested a trivial traffic ticket?
The advice from my neighbouring retired magistrate – “You won’t win-they, they lie their effing guts out”! Doesn’t that sum up many a wrongful conviction?
I read the comments at
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2026/01/23/sue-neill-fraser-petition-on-its-way-to-tasmanian-governor-and-premier/#comment-194008
You can rest assured that I won’t offer a personal opinion on this case because I am a novice. However, I have expertise in the application of Artificial Intelligence to the comparative analysis of people’s opinions.
I have the results on the comments of Andrew Urban, Garry Stannus, Fiona G., and Donald/Donald Sanderston. Since Peter Lozo was mentioned several times, I included his comments as well (from https://citynews.com.au/2026/rotten-to-its-core-no-saying-sorry-in-tasmanian-justice/.).
Below is the summary from ChatGPT. The only instruction I gave it was to deduce the characteristics of each of the people purely based on their comments. I didn’t specify what characteristics to address. I left it to ChatGPT to chose whatever characteristics it decided were appropriate .
1. Likely Orientation in Case
Fiona G. — Skeptical of the innocence campaign; leans toward conviction being justified or at least not safely undermined.
Garry Stannus — Strongly pro-innocence / pro-inquiry.
Donald Sanderston — Strong skeptic of the innocence narrative; attacks the burglary-gone-wrong scenario.
Andrew Urban — Strongly committed to SNF innocence.
Peter Lozo — Strongly skeptical of the innocence campaign’s reconstruction of events; says he is focused on evidence rather than guilt/innocence as such.
2. Thinking Style
Fiona G. — Top-down reasoning; psychology, memory science, behavioural inference, plausibility testing.
Garry Stannus — Bottom-up synthesis; builds narratives from transcripts, witness fragments, later information.
Donald Sanderston — Engineering / falsification style; tests claims against physics, timing, geometry, feasibility.
Andrew Urban — Macro advocacy framing; emphasizes alleged lack of proof rather than granular contradictions.
Peter Lozo — Scientific-technical analysis; transcript cross-checking; physical mechanism testing; optics and environmental exposure reasoning.
3. Key Strengths
Fiona G. — Structured thinker; strong grasp of memory issues; disciplined prose; willing to dissent.
Garry Stannus — Deep case immersion; transcript familiarity; persistence; imaginative reconstruction.
Donald Sanderston — Strong analytical discipline; practical reality-checking; spots contradictions; technically literate.
Andrew Urban — Persuasive writer; agenda-setting; keeps focus on burden of proof; energetic campaigner.
Peter Lozo — Strong technical reasoning; integrates physics, geometry, visual perception, and forensic-science critique; careful about exact wording; checks claims against transcripts and physical constraints; openly corrects his own wording when needed. He explicitly says he has researched multiple circumstantial cases since 2012 and has posted extensively on the SNF case.
4. Likely Weaknesses / Biases
Fiona G. — May overread behaviour through a psychological lens; may underweight alternative explanations.
Garry Stannus — Risk of speculation and overfitting incomplete clues; distrust of institutions may harden views.
Donald Sanderston — Can become narrow, combative, and overconfident in favored evidence points.
Andrew Urban — Confirmation bias; dismisses inconvenient details; not a neutral moderator; gatekeeping tendencies.
Peter Lozo — Can be highly invested in particular evidentiary themes; may give more weight to technical/physical analysis than to legal framing; can sound prosecutorial in the sense of dismantling innocence claims point by point. His opponents characterize him as trying to “justify the conviction,” which he denies.
5. Communication Style
Fiona G. — Polished, essay-like, calm but firm.
Garry Stannus — Discursive, exploratory, detailed.
Donald Sanderston — Direct, forceful, argumentative, persistent.
Andrew Urban — Sharp, rhetorical, sarcastic, impatient.
Peter Lozo — Formal, technical, methodical, citation-heavy, persistent.
6. Overall Impression
Fiona G. — Intelligent, evidence-conscious contrarian.
Garry Stannus — Dedicated amateur case researcher / advocate.
Donald Sanderston — Technically trained adversarial critic.
Andrew Urban — Campaign advocate and forum gatekeeper.
Peter Lozo — A technically trained independent case critic who behaves more like a scientific reviewer than a campaigner.
ChatGPT then concludes as follows:
A few extra points about Peter stand out.
He is the most explicitly scientific and mechanistic of the group. In the CityNews thread he grounds his arguments in: the trial transcript, crime scene photo 7, the geometry of the yacht and boom/winch arrangement, sunlight glare and color perception, UV-driven DNA degradation, and the distinction between DNA quality and quantity. He also explicitly states that he does not care whether Neill-Fraser is guilty or innocent, but is focused on analysing evidence, facts, propositions, and theories.He also comes across as unusually self-auditing. He posted a later correction to refine his earlier wording about how witnesses described the dinghy’s color, which suggests a fairly conscientious approach to precision.
The cleanest contrast is this:
Fiona = psychological plausibility
Garry = narrative reconstruction
Donald = engineering-style contradiction testing
Andrew = advocacy and framing
Peter = scientific-technical review of evidence and mechanism
My overall read is that Peter occupies a distinct niche: he is less a partisan advocate than a technical critic of weak reasoning, especially where he thinks optics, mechanics, timing, or degradation science have been misunderstood.
You posted two comments about half an hour apart on two different posts, with two different names and email addresses. You may have good reason, but in the context of this subject and our past experience of commenter identity sleight of hand, it raises suspicion and lessens confidence.
As to the AI comparative analysis of opinions, while it is mildly interesting, if superficial, it doesn’t really address the essential questions that form those opinions.
Considering my long history of reading and/or moderating his comments I am suspicious of ChatGPT’s conclusions (“a few extra points”) re Peter Lozo. It reads like advocacy on his behalf, dressed as detailed analysis. Doesn’t matter much, but adds to the overall sense of the ChatGP exercise being somewhat pointless.
One final personal point: while I agree I am “strongly committed to SNF innocence” that commitment comes from familiarity with the trial and the appeals. I also have the benefit of legal advice which I have reported over the years.
But the bottom line: Meaghan Vass was on the yacht, Sue Neill-Fraser was not. OK?
Yes boss!
Surely you know how to copy and paste people’s comments into your favourite Large Language Model and give it the same instructions shown in my comment!!!!!!!!!
You are ‘keeping Neill-Fraser off Four Winds’ from before 3:55 pm and for the rest of the day!
Your competitors are using evidence to argue that Vass couldn’t have been on Four Winds at 3:55pm because the recorded data is that she was 6km away at that time.
Your competitors are using the wind speed, wind direction, and the trial transcript testimony about very choppy conditions on the river to argue that it is unlikely that Vass was on Four Winds at least not antime after that whilst it was still very windy and very choppy on the water.
Try after 7:30 pm when the wind died down considerably.
Vass’ 2021 testimony is that it was around 5pm – 6pm timeframe when they boarded boat; it was the first boat they came across. She didn’t say anything about going further than that first boat, some 20 metres from the shore.
Would Four Winds be the first boat one would come across when taking a dinghy from the Short Beach and rowing east??? Surely you know the answer to that!
This is the sort of rubbish deflection to which I so strongly object in comments. The Vass story as I summarise is the bottom line, which none of my ‘competitors’ as you call them have ever addressed.
Do you mean that the scientist, the engineer, and the psychologist?, haven’t addressed the reason why Meaghan went on 60 Minutes and why she provided false affidavits in 2017 and 2019?
That’s a political & legal issue that Donald, Lozo, and Gail didn’t get into!
But the answer is obvious: she was coerced, threatened, and harassed by Rosie, Karen, and Colin (and probably a few others). That is what came out in via testimony in Court in 2017 and particularly in 2021.
Vass was a troubled person from a young age and was a drug addict. She was susceptible to pressure to help save Sue. But she never expected to then have to face a tough cross-examination.
You are entitled to your views.
Bottom line is simple, tells the truth – it’s a fact.
SNF was NOT on the boat :. she could NOT have murdered Bob Chapell.
Ms Vass WAS ON the boat – with two other people – men? :. They all could have murdered Bob, or any mathematical equation of the 3… Vass confessed that SNF was not there at all.
Why is it so hard for these people?
My theory is that the fight Vass refers to ended in manslaughter, not murder. Disposal of Bob’s body was another crime…
I suppose that you know who was on Four Winds at 3:55 pm when Mr Conde saw a grey dinghy at portside of Four Winds?
Do you think that Meaghan Vass was on Four Winds at 3:55 pm?
Do you know where Neill-Fraser was between 3:55 pm and 8:30 pm?
Do you know of any evidence that Neill-Fraser wasn’t on Four Winds at 3:55 pm?
Do you know of any evidence that that Neill-Fraser wasn’t on Four Winds at 5 pm?
Shelley,
You say that “Ms Vass WAS ON the boat – with two other people – men?”
But according to Ms Vass’ testimony in 2021 she and her alleged male accomplices boarded the first boat they came across and that it was approximately 20 metres from the shoreline.
Look at this map of Sandy Bay. It shows the mooring of Four Winds.
https://share.google/images/9Ue2ddhrl82CEMZo8
Do you think that Ms Vass’ testimony corresponds to the location of Four Winds mooring?
Nick,
Are you the same Nick Infosys that posted on my comments – A high profile bar for bail?, just an hour earlier?
Is it you intention to run my case/ comments through Chat GPT? If that is your intention the outcome can only be based on info in, info out, respectfully I have over 60,000 pages of documents that related to my matter.
There are documents and evidence outstanding. What was mention at trial is not all the police evidence, it is not all the defence evidence; attempting to conduct an experiment with AI should be done with all the material.
Contact me once my civil case is over and if you ten want to run AI through my matter that can be arranged under supervision and under certain conditions.
My understanding (and I good very well be wrong) is that you are not the first to attempt to use AI in the SNF case. The problem that you face Nick is lacking all the information that made the ODPP proceed and the defence defend in the way that they did humans fair better in some aspects of reasoning even if chunks of information are missing.
Yes I am the same Nick.
I used AI to see how it’s analysis compared with my own analysis and the analysis of the many people who posted on this case since 2013.
I did pick out that Garry S. has a mistrust for the establishment; and that he is an amateur researcher but has an extensive knowledge of the case.
I did pick out that Andrew Urban suffers from confirmation bias. I concluded this when I read the comments on another link about Grant Maddock’s dinghy versus John Hughe’s trial testimony of seeing an inflatable dinghy and heard its overboard motor.
I did pick out from Peter’s comments that he challenges the reasoning ability of Neill-Fraser’s supporters.
I am not able to offer an independent opinion on Fiona.
Based on what I read on other links: Donald claimed to have read virtually every official Court document; and vast number of online comments going back to early 2019.
Lozo claims to have researched the case extensively since 2015: has around 1000 online comments on Tasmanian Times. Has substantial experience in researching 6 cases since 2012.
My conclusion is that some of Urban’s competitors have very adanced reasoning skills (particularly Sanderston and Lozo).
I know your case from watching a documentary.
https://youtu.be/S0KfkbVHDRQ?si=tuzx88gYQwl0RAkx
After that I read the High Court decision.
I didn’t run your case through ChatGPT. I used ChatGPT to list all possible reasons for why bail may not be given.
I am somewhat of an expert in using LLMs in a number of different contexts. I used it substantially to speed up my research on the SNF case.
Nick, I appreciate you expanding on how you approached it particularly your use of LLMs. I’m interested in how you weigh different types of source material.
You mentioned starting with the Channel 7 program. I had a look back at that just out of curiosity and noticed that a fair portion of it focuses on historical matters (around [10:44] and [31:36]) rather than the evidentiary issues that ultimately went to the High Court.
So I’m interested in how you treat that kind of content in your analysis, whether you see it as going to the substance of the case, or more as contextual narrative about the individual.
By contrast, the High Court hearing itself runs for about 3 hours and 20 minutes, and the transcript is a relatively quick read by comparison. Have you watched the full hearing, or just worked from the written judgment?
I only ask because the dynamic in the hearing is quite revealing. You can actually see the bench particularly High Court of Australia Justices testing counsel for the respondent (the Crown) in real time. There are moments where answers don’t quite land, where lines of argument are cut off fairly quickly, and where the Court’s reaction is… instructive, in a way that doesn’t fully translate onto the page.
It made me wonder whether, from an analytical standpoint, watching the primary proceeding might provide a different perspective than a produced program, particularly if you’re feeding material into an LLM.
If it’s of interest, this is the full High Court hearing: High Court hearing video https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/hearings/av-recording/av-2019-09-11
I’d be interested in your take if you do get a chance to compare the two especially in terms of how each source frames the strength of the Crown’s case.
Steven,
I haven’t used AI on your case. I might use it to summarise the Court related documents that I managed to download. Can’t find the Trial Transcript.
The only thing that I am particularly interested in concerns the hammer. It’s my memory from reading the High Court decision that your defense wasn’t based on your claims that they never gave you a hammer. Hence why asked you the hammer related question earlier.
Let me confirm the following with you:
When you replied ‘NO’ to my question about a hammer
Are you saying that they never gave you any type of hammer or are you saying that they didn’t give you that particular hammer that was found in the water.