Andrew L. Urban.
Almost exactly 16 years ago (15 Oct. 2010), the murder trial of Sue Neill-Fraser came to an end with the jury satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she had killed her partner of 18 years, Bob Chappell. But immediately and in the intervening years, a veritable army of thousands, including lawyers, barristers and legal academics, raised innumerable doubts, all ignored or dismissed by Tasmania’s legal and political establishments. So Sue’s trials and tribulations, four years after her release on parole, have continued to this day, as evidenced by 60 Minutes last night (18 Oct. 2026).
It was 40 Minutes long, this segment titled An Inconvenient Woman and most of it was well known to those interested in the case. The show covered all the key points, updated with a bit of hindsight and with Sue Neill-Fraser a ‘credible witness’. The most pertinent point she made was that her claim of innocence is based on evidence. We agree. There was short historic footage of an interview with police tunnel visioned Inspector Peter Powell and nostalgic footage of Sue and Bob.
There was valuable new footage of Rosie Crumpton-Crook, President of the Sue Neill Fraser Support Group and of Adelaide University legal academic Bob Moles affirming his long held conviction that Sue had been wrongfully convicted, his years of familiarity with the case supporting that belief. There should have been more from this erudite, well informed expert. His extensive study years ago revealed the many flaws, from the investigation through the trial and beyond, but in the show we only got a glimpse.
I was struck with what was not there. There was no sign any of the players who have contributed to the conviction and to its subsequent protection. While I accept that then DPP Tim Ellis cannot be expected to comment on the case, the public wants to hear from the political class still defending the conviction, especially those who are fighting to stop any independent review. The sharp dissonance of the conviction against the failures of evidence would add enormous ballast to the program. The producers went to a lot of trouble; a few minutes interrogating past and present Attorneys-General, for example, would have been illuminating, even if they only uttered some weasel words to justify their opposition to an independent review of the most controversial murder conviction since Lindy Chamberlain’s.
As Sue pointed out, many people in that ‘club’ have reputations to protect; they regard her as an inconvenient woman.
BRIEFING
Sue Neill-Fraser’s trial judge cross examined
