First published August 24
From the Sydney Morning Herald …
‘On May 11, Victoria’s leading criminal barrister, Robert Richter QC, met with Tasmania’s Premier, Will Hodgman and handed him a confidential dossier known as the ‘white paper’
‘The explosive file revealed that a potential teenage witness to one of Tasmania’s most notorious crimes had signed a statutory declaration which casts doubt on the conviction of a woman who has spent the past seven years behind bars for her partner’s murder.
‘Mr Richter’s white paper suggests Chappell was killed when he disturbed a homeless girl and other vagrants, who had boarded the Four Winds planning to steal from it. The dossier names two men with extensive criminal records who may be involved in the murder.
‘Hodgman and Groom declined to read the white paper but agreed that Solicitor-general Michael O’Farrell SC should review it. Richter flew back to Melbourne and waited for a reaction.
‘It came this month, although not in the manner Richter expected.
‘Witnesses named in the white paper who helped compile or corroborate aspects of a homeless girl’s statement – her associate Karen Keefe, a lawyer Jeff Thompson, and another man who must remain anonymous, Witness X – have all been arrested by Tasmanian police and charged with perverting the course of justice.’
For the complete news article please read the Sydney Morning Herald article HERE
Also see HERE
*Dr Peter Lozo is a researcher and a consultant in the field of neural models of visual perception and object recognition. He is a former Dept of Defence scientist at Defence Science and Technology (DST) Group, South Australia. During his defence career he has worked on servo-control systems, microprocessor based design, digital image processing, automatic target recognition, land robotics, and computational modelling of neural network models/circuits for object recognition and visual perception. He has a BSc (majoring in Physics) and a PhD (on the modelling of selective visual attention and object recognition) from the University of Adelaide. He has held an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow position at the University of South Australia, and has contributed to the supervision of postgraduate engineering students there and at the University of Adelaide. Peter has a hobby of researching cases that are believed to be a miscarriage of justice. He has contributed to TT comments on the Susan Neill-Fraser case since April 2015.
• Examiner: New Neill-Fraser appeal set for October 30
• ABC: Sue Neill-Fraser: Karen Keefe pleads not guilty to perverting course of justice
• The Age: Death on the Derwent: in search of the truth In the gardens of a Hobart prison, away from the cinder blocks and corrugated iron and the prying of guards and inmates, an alleged plan to free murderer Sue Neill-Fraser was born. As she wandered between the raised beds last November, police suspect Neill-Fraser spoke to a fellow inmate. The suspected contents of these conversations would, months later, lead to one of the most controversial Tasmanian police investigations in recent history …
• Mercury: The appeal of Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction puts the Tasmanian legal system on trial
• Matthew Denholm, The Australian: Bob Chappell mystery: conspiracies collide in case that won’t die
• Mercury: New person interviewed by detectives in connection to appeal over Bob Chappell death
Dr Peter Lozo
August 23, 2017 at 14:06
Premier Will Hodgman recently stated:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/convicted-murderer-sue-neill-fraser-appeal-date-set/8835528?pfmredir=sm
Thus, Mr Richter’s attempt to convince the Tasmanian Government to establish an independent inquiry into Neill-Fraser’s case hasn’t had any success.Â
Now that Neill Fraser’s appeal is set to begin on October 30 it will be interesting to see how the case will proceed in light of the alleged perjured witnesses who had already been charged.
Based on my research of this case, I very much doubt that MV (the homeless girl) was ever on-board the Four Winds yacht although a forensic expert (Prof Peter Gunn) recently stated (on Ch 7 Sunday Night program) that MV was more likely to have been on-board at some stage. How MV’s DNA got onto the yacht is a very puzzling aspect of the case. The information contained in the Trial Transcript indicates that MV couldn’t have been on the yacht at 4pm (the time when eyewitnesses saw a ‘grey’ dinghy at the portside of Four Winds) because the records at the Mara house (where she stayed) have her leaving there at 3:50 pm.
This is the relevant extract from the Trial Transcript (753/25):
I have previously provided an explanation as to why the ‘grey’ dinghy that was spotted at the portside of Four Winds at 3:55 pm and at 5:00 pm could have been Sue’s white dinghy but was perceived to be grey under the viewing conditions and geometry that faced the eyewitnesses who saw the dinghy that afternoon on the Australia Day 2009.
Here is also a relevant statement by Peter Powell [Peter Powell on Background Briefing: Murder on the Derwent]:
I like to stress that it isn’t only that the dinghy was most probably in the shadow of the Four Winds yacht but that the eyewitnesses were looking in the general direction of the sun and would have been affected by glare , thus reducing their ability to correctly percieve the true colour of the dinghy they were looking at on the portside of the yacht.
There is also information (which was available to Neill-Fraser’s trial defence attorney) that was not used at the trial, to indicate that Neill-Fraser left the Four Winds yacht at around 7:45 – 8:30 pm. This information isn’t mentioned in the Trial Transcript. See Barbara Etter’s blog titled:
 “The “Weatherbeaten Man” in the Sue Neill-Fraser Case”
http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/the-weatherbeaten-man-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/
Had Neill-Fraser left Four Winds sometime shortly after 8pm then this time is significant because it would mean that her arrival home would be about the time it was getting dark (the sunset was at around 8:40 pm). This arrival to her home correlates with her own statement (in her Stat Dec of 28th Jan) that she got home about the time it was starting to get dark. In the absence of any alibis from Neill-Fraser and in the light of the above, I am led to conclude that she was most likely on the yacht from about 2pm to about 8pm and arrived back home shortly before her first telephone call at 9:08 pm (to her daughter).
I have also previously provided an explanation as to why it would have been easy (but quite time consuming) to winch a body of 65kg from below the deck with a yacht winch that had a power ratio of at least 20:1 and then (also using the winch) lower the body onto a dinghy (or just below the surface of the water and tied to the dinghy) for disposal elsewhere in the river. Elsewhere I had also addressed Neill-Fraser’s different versions as to what she did after her phone conversation with Mr King.
Cont…
Dr Peter Lozo
August 23, 2017 at 14:08
Cont..
If two men (vagrants?) had committed the crime (as alleged in Mr Richter’s dossier) would they really bother in spending so much time on the yacht rigging the ropes and the winch and then winching the body out from below the deck? Why would they do that instead of simply carrying the body up the companionway of the yacht or using the rope to manually pull the body from below the deck?
john hayward
August 23, 2017 at 14:37
When you consider that a criminal conviction is supposed to be “beyond reasonable doubt”, the Neill-Fraser conviction and that the government suppressed the DNA evidence and Stat Dec admission of a delinquent minor known as a crim associate that she was present on the yacht on the night with three friends into robbery, your eyebrows tend to rise.
I confess to being more suspicious than some people after I received a summons under the Federal Crimes Act for having allegedly threatened the wife of a pro-logging forestry agitator, which I simply hadn’t. There was later a nighttime visit from a Hobart criminal investigations cop who attempted to ramp up the menace.
The cops were finally undone by the fact that there were no transcriptions or other evidence of the alleged calls, and by Telecom’s disclosure of my 43 calls over 5 years to the police about the logging lover’s breaches of his 5 year restraint order for stalking us, which the police hadn’t acknowledged.
It would be nice to feel there is a baseline below which the professional integrity in our justice system cannot fall.
John Hayward
O'Brien
August 23, 2017 at 16:29
#3 Hey, I thought it was just me…
One Christmas a few years ago my car was broken into along with fifty or so others. The attending police officer told me, as he slouched on my kitchen bench; “We know who it is, we know where they live, and there is nothing we can do about it…â€. Excuse me?
I reported public service workplace threats of assault & allegations of corruption to my ex-police public service manager, who ignored me and suggested I resign. He also appointed his ex-police chum to a vacant position on the tassie M.E.R.I.T. principle in my area. I then followed the chain above his head to the departmental head, they all ignored me. I reported same to the then Labour/labor Minister Brian Wightman and his HR staffer, they ignored me. I then attempted to report it to our ersatz Labour/labor senator who gets votes on the grounds she’s a cut above the rest. Next thing a vicious cop deprived me of my liberty, locked me in a hole, attempted to menace me, fitted me up in cahoots with a sergeant. It was made abundantly clear where this would be heading next time. It takes time to build a body of evidence to get a conviction to lock someone away… Since then I have been busy in exile attempting to survive and bring these matters to light. Well folks forget it. Ministers of all parties and stripes will ignore you, or worse. Police will menace you. Commission for corruption will laugh at you. You are on your own just read “One flew over the kookaburra’s nestâ€:
It’s simple folks there’s on group of people who accept the corrupt state of affairs they are to be found in Risdon prison, the public service, police force, or Parliament. Most simply ignore and refuse to believe it, go about their business intentionally oblivious. Then there are those the corrupt cabal attempt to silence through fear, or worse. Human life becomes cheap when there are billions of dollars involved. Perhaps it’s always been that way in Tassie? It was and remains a prison colony ever since the English sent their refuse to rot on these far flung shores at the end of the world.
Invicta
August 23, 2017 at 16:37
It was obvious that innumerable ‘experts’ would come out of the woodwork and put forward their ideas on this case.
This particular opinion – from an expert in visual perception and object recognition – is one of the more ill-conceived of those presented thus far.
To re-iterate, as Mr Hayward notes at #3, the standard of proof in a criminal case in Tasmania (as in all similar legal jurisdictions) is that the jury must be persuaded of the accused person’s guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Since conviction of a criminal offence can bring very onerous consequences for the accused, the standard is high.
In cases where the evidence is entirely circumstantial – that is to say, there is no direct evidence of guilt presented – the jury must be persuaded that there is NO alternative explanation for the crime other than the accused’s guilt.
In the Neill-Fraser case, the presence of DNA belonging to Ms Vass, and another unknown person, on the yacht should have been sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to Ms Neill-Fraser’s guilt. There could have been a reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of Mr Chappell to the one proposed by the DPP.
Regardless of Ms Neill-Fraser’s true involvement in this matter, her conviction makes a mockery of the criminal standard of proof, and we should all be VERY concerned about it.
The opinions of experts outside the legal field who make a ‘hobby’ out of researching cases such as these are a dangerous distraction from the core tenet of the criminal legal system.
So, a white dinghy might look grey in certain lighting conditions. But was Dr Lozo present at Sandy Bay on the evening in question? Does he know the nuances of light in Tasmania – which differs from other parts of Australia in intensity and character?
And, seriously, who trusts the records of a homeless shelter to be scrupulously accurate. The staff in those places are so stressed and overworked, it’s a wonder records are kept at all.
Finally, re: your concluding question at #3, Mr Hayward – dream on!
john hayward
August 23, 2017 at 21:29
(Deleted as off-topic)
Steve
August 23, 2017 at 23:58
My chuckle is an article that’s basically quoting a media report and the first three comments are from the “author” of the article.
Is plagiarism spelt with “s” or a “z”?
Jane
August 24, 2017 at 02:03
Invicta
1. The yacht arrived in Hobart just before Christmas. Unless you can establish (MW’s) DNA appeared on the yacht on the night Bob was murdered, your point of law means nothing. There could be 100 DNA profiles on the boat, deposited between Dec 24 and Jan 26. Prove it was put there on that day, then you can place her at the scene of a crime. In fact, if she boarded on the night she may well have found the body that Sue hadn’t disposed of yet. If we failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt based on the presence of DNA we’d have murderers roaming free from one end of the state to the other. She WAS ruled out as being capable of having murdered Bob and sinking a yacht in the method used.
2. As somebody who has been homeless before, I think you’ll find shelters have sign in and sign out books plus books they keep staff notes in. I know because I read mine once. These record day, date and time. The shelter hosts minors and they’re required to keep good notes to know if residents are in or out. They provided good info on (MW), including the number of the non-existent unit.
(Deleted as personally abusive observation)
Dr Peter Lozo
August 24, 2017 at 15:42
#5 Invicta
I answered the almost same scientifically nonsensical question (posed by John Biggs) quite some time ago!
I need not have been there!
A glare is a glare is a glare regardless where whether you are in Mvezo, Hobart or Adelaide!
I went online to check the location of the sun for the period 4-5 pm for 26th Jan 2009 as seen from the location where the Four Winds was moored; I noted the direction of the tide and the orientation of the Four Winds as listed in the trial transcript; I did some simple geometrical analysis to calculate whether the dinghy on the portside would be in the direct line of sight to the location of the sun or whether the yacht was in the way; I noted the weather for the day and the photo of that morning; I know about ‘mie scattering’; I know about the amplifying effect that mie scattering will have on the amount of total light that gets to the ground from sunlight that passes between the gaps in the clouds; I know how the eye and the visual cortex will process the contrast between the dinghy and its immediate background, etc, etc.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 24, 2017 at 16:04
Steve,
I can prove via my email to TT when I submitted the article that my submission to TT had quotation marks at the beginning and at the end of the article because the paragraphs were copied (unchanged) by me directly from the SMH article!!!
The ED must have removed the quotation marks (something I did not notice until you mentioned it).
No plagiarism (on my behalf) here my friend. I think that the ED added the full name of your solicitor-general.
Thanks for noticing this.
Ben Dean
August 24, 2017 at 16:15
So now we have Karen Keefe charged and pleading not guilty with perverting the course of justice. This charge is premised on it being a true FACT that (MW) was NOT on the yacht. This ‘FACT’ remains a conjecture in which the Crown Prosecution and the police ‘believed’ MV’s DNA was not a primary deposit on the yacht, to which they have offering no proof, other than asserting this as a fact. So how will the Court now test this FACT by proving MV DNA was in fact a transfer, and to then prove a crime of perverting justice has occurred.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 24, 2017 at 16:29
#8 Jane
Excellent reply to Invicta’s poorly thought out comment that does not appear to be grounded on any background research!
Steve
August 24, 2017 at 17:01
#10; I’m happy to concede to your superior knowledge of the correct way to attribute quotations.
I’m a simple soul. When I see an article with an apparent authors name at the top, details of the author at the bottom, I naively assume that the content of the article originated from the author named.
Ed: Similarly …
Dr Peter Lozo
August 24, 2017 at 17:21
#13 Steve
No problem.
Here is something you did not notice:
Even though the first two comments here are mine they did not show up for about two hours after Johh H posted his first comment! Thus, John’s comment #3 was shown as post #1 for the first few hours. I wonder whether John noticed something unusual going on.
Invicta
August 24, 2017 at 17:58
#8 Jane
Perhaps you need to speak to a competent legal professional or academic, and have them explain to you the concept of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal proceedings.
The case against Ms Neill-Fraser was ENTIRELY circumstantial – there was no direct forensic evidence supporting her guilt, no witnesses to the crime, no credible motive, and, most importantly, Mr Chappell’s body has not been found. The murder scenario put to the jury by the DPP – that Ms Neill-Fraser struck Mr Chappell from behind with a heavy object, then winched his body overboard, rowed out into the river and disposed of it – was nothing more than supposition. There was NO evidence to support it.
The presence on the yacht of DNA belonging to a person whose whereabouts at the time of Mr Chappell’s disappearance have not been definitively established, should have been sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to Ms Neill-Fraser’s guilt, in a properly directed jury.
As for your comment about DNA and ‘murderers roaming free from one end of the state to the other’ – what utter nonsense. Most murders, in case you haven’t noticed, at least have a body to show for the accused’s efforts. Some even have a clear motive, or witnesses. The Neill-Fraser case had none of these evidentiary features.
And, I’ve also worked in the community sector – with homeless persons, domestic violence victims, and people enduring countless other difficulties. It’s stressful work, and, although records were kept as a matter of procedure, we didn’t always record everything promptly. Sometimes, the records had to wait while we dealt with something more pressing – this is not a criticism, it was a fact of life in the job.
Re: your comment – ‘if she boarded on the night she may well have found the body that Sue hadn’t disposed of yet’. I haven’t heard that proposition before. Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
Jane
August 24, 2017 at 19:54
#Invicta I’m familiar with the law regarding circumstantial cases thanks. That is why I used the phrase ‘ruled out’. BRD is more onerous in circumstantial cases as other explanations (such as whether MV committed the murder) need to be ruled out. That is precisely what they did! Because MVs DNA was on there, they ruled her out as being not only unlikely, but incapable.
The shelter contacted authorities during the trial – some time after MV was a resident. It is clear that they weren’t relying on memory but written record. If they said Unit 8 and 3:50 pm, they had written it down. Please don’t insult welfare workers by suggesting they cannot tell the time under stress. It doesn’t matter anyway. Even if she left the shelter at 2pm, she still wasn’t capable.
Regarding your last sentence – too weird! Bob was killed that day, so at some point his body was on there! I don’t believe MV boarded the yacht that night, if at all. If she had, she might have seen Bob’s body after Sue killed him, or indeed interrupted her disposing of his body.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 25, 2017 at 03:47
A note about the eyewitness on Sunday Night’s program
The witness who featured on Ch 7 Sunday Night was over 500 metres away from the location of Four Winds. Barbara Etter (on her blog) stated that she estimates it to be 600 metres. That witness stated that she saw a grey “aluminium†dinghy and that the dinghy was on Starboard side. It appears (based on what Etter was able to discover) that that witness  thought it to be an aluminium dinghy on the basis of its shape.Â
Read here
http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/another-response-to-tasmania-police-media-release-from-the-lead-investigating-inspector-dated-25-august-2014-in-sue-neill-fraser-case/
It is my opinion that from that distance the human visual system wouldn’t be able to differentiate between an inflatable dinghy and an aluminium dinghy regardless of the features. I believe that this witness was looking at another yacht and dinghy that was much closer (she would have been looking approx in north-easterly direction and thus wouldn’t have experienced anywhere as much glare (some of which comes from the reflection of sun-rays from the surface of the water) as the other eyewitnesses who were looking at the port-side of Four Winds: the sun was behind her).
Dr Peter Lozo
August 25, 2017 at 15:52
Further comments on “vagrants” and the defence “break-in theory gone wrong”
I thought to push on further with respect to Mr Richter’s dossier because it appears that Mr Percy QC (Neill-Fraser’s barrister) will use its contents during the next hearing that is set for 4 days starting Oct 30th.
I don’t have access to Mr Richther’s dossier (a 25 page paper) so I will here include some publicly available information regarding the possibility that two men (vagrants) got onto Four Winds for the purpose of burglary and ended committing murder.
Below is a relevant extract from the Oct 2016 Background Briefing: Murder on the Derwent
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2016-10-23/7949840#transcript
Damien Carrick: Soon after the laws were passed, Sue’s legal team filed an application for leave to appeal against conviction. The document contains a number of different grounds. One ground is that there is fresh evidence that, in addition to the teenage girl, two other people might have been involved in Bob’s murder. The two men have criminal histories, and Sarah Bowles says one of them was homeless at the time of Bob’s death and is now serving a jail sentence. Charged with attempted murder, he pleaded guilty to doing an unlawful act intended to cause physical harm.
Sarah Bowles: One of them was known to Mum and Bob. He assisted them, manoeuvred the dinghy into the water going out to the yacht, knew which yacht was theirs. And I believe he was also ex-navy, so would have had some understanding of boats and water. The other character was living on or around a yacht that was moored close by to Four Winds at the time. He is also quite a shady character with a significant criminal history.
Damien Carrick: Sarah Bowles won’t, without the information being first heard in open court, reveal the evidence that puts the two men in the frame.
Sarah Bowles: Evidence has come to light that’s fairly compelling that suggests that one of these two people, if not both of them, were likely to have been involved in what occurred that night, if not responsible.
Damien Carrick: But police investigator Peter Powell says there is no evidence of any kind that links either of these two men to Bob’s murder.
Peter Powell: We were aware of the homeless man, and he was spoken to, I think on the morning the yacht was found sinking. There was nothing to suggest he was involved. He was then interviewed again after Sue was convicted. We were satisfied he wasn’t involved.
Damien Carrick: The other man was also checked out.
Peter Powell: They were friends in the past. They’re basically, in my view, a couple of middle-aged alcoholics. And I don’t think, knowing what their general state is, that either of them would be capable of doing anything in the way of a decent cover-up of a crime scene. It’s just another theory. Anyone can come up with a theory. Just because someone’s got a history doesn’t mean that they’re connected to this event.
———-
Here is a relevant extract from a 2014 Police statement:
See here
http://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/tasmania-police-statement-2-susan-neill-fraser-case/
It thus seems to me that the alleged conspiracy uncovered by the police this year was an elaborate scheme designed to bolster the evidence for the break in theory gone wrong. But will it succeed in the forthcoming hearing in couple of months?
Richard Kopf
August 25, 2017 at 19:15
I find it difficult to comprehend the “evidence” that two thugs were successful in overpowering, killing and dumping the body of Neill-Fraser overboard, yet did so without leaving a trace of their DNA. How clever is that?
Dr Peter Lozo
August 25, 2017 at 20:54
#19 Richard
– the body of Bob Chappell.
Johann Hulz
August 25, 2017 at 20:54
Re: 11. charge of perverting justice – “This charge is premised on it being a true FACT that (MW) was NOT on the yacht.”
Is this just an assumption? I would be very surprised if the charge is just based on what you have alluded to.
We have an allegation that someone has attempted to pervert the course of justice, but I suggest we don’t know what premises that charge is based on at this time. Maybe we should wait until we know what evidence has been obtained, before concluding what the charge is based on.
Steve
August 25, 2017 at 21:39
#20; Very sensible comment. The current situation is that people have been charged. The correct procedure is to wait until after the trial before going to town on speculation.
I’m as interested as anyone as to what has gone on here but trial by media doesn’t help the justice process.
john hayward
August 26, 2017 at 00:09
What is incredibly frustrating for a Tasmanian resident is that hearsay statements by various Justice Department officials are accepted as statements of fact.
The fact that Neill-Fraser’s guilt was not proven within a light year of beyond reasonable doubt, combined with the lack of any real evidence that MV was not on the yacht that night, should have killed any conviction.
Did anyone in the Tas system ever read about the Lindy Chamberlain case, or were they simply confident that no one would mention it?
John Hayward
Dr Peter Lozo
August 26, 2017 at 02:16
#23 John
Pardon my naivety in this matters but doesn’t the fact that Sue was convicted and sentenced mean that the jury (at least in their collective interpretation of the circumstantial evidence of the case and within their collective understanding of what BRD means) had in fact found her guilty BRD within the confines of the case evidence?
Dr Peter Lozo
August 26, 2017 at 02:50
#19 Richard
I agree. I am of opinion that more people you have involved in murder the higher the likelihood of someone leaving DNA and/or fingerprints. How is the defence going to deal with this issue of no physical evidence to link the men to the crime? All they have is an affidavit from an unreliable witness. I don’t know much about MV but I question whether the then 15 year homeless girl (who lived in a teenage shelter) would hang around and party with couple of middle aged men (vagrants) on some yacht and then the trio would get an idea to hop onto a dinghy and raid another yacht, kill a man but not steal anything (unless they fell in love with the 14kg fire extinguisher). There was no report of any alcohol missing but a fire extinguisher! A whole lot of work went into rigging the ropes and the winch (there is evidence that a winch was used to pull something from below the deck), scuttling the yacht, and then taking the body away!  Vagrants with lots of skill and knowledge who took so much  extra unnecessary  time on Four Winds just to steal a fire extinguisher – give me a break!
Richard Kopf
August 26, 2017 at 14:52
#20 Thanks for the correction.#25 your logic is sound, I agree. One doesn’t need endless trials to prove the obvious. I am sure their are deserving cases in Tasmania that could benefit from the wasted resources of the judicial system.
I never cease to wonder at the motives of Neil-Fraser’s supporters.
I first gained interest in this case by being asked to sign a petition for her release. I said, no, as I knew little of the case.
I then did something unusual it seems. I read the transcript of the trial and became convinced that justice had been done.
Are her supporters naive? Uncomfortable, that they have befriended a remorseless murderer and fervently wishing it is not so? Or like Charles Woolley and other similar hangers on, enhancing their professional lives through their pursuit, not of justice but media exposure.
Or people who can’t believe middle class women can be murderers?
john hayward
August 26, 2017 at 17:02
All the supporters of the conviction seem to work on the presumption that the court’s decision was impeccably impartial and professional.
Look at its record on the Gay judgment , etc.
John Hayward
Johann Hulz
August 26, 2017 at 18:18
#27. What? Are you suggesting he was wrongly convicted also??
John Wiseman
August 27, 2017 at 15:12
#27 I support the conviction of the murder known as Sue Neill Fraser based on reading the transcript of the cout case, having a jury convict her and now seeing people associated with her support being charged with perverting the course of justice.
When you say the courts conviction convinced the supporters of the prosecution, you show disregard for the jury, the prosecution, the police work, the extensive forensic evidence etc.
When I read the transcript of the case I tried to stay neutral like a juror would start. Within a few pages of the case I gave up on the murdrer Sue Neill Fraser because she kept lying. The phone call *10# is one of the most crucial pieces of the time puzzle. The bandage seen by the police after the disappearance, with the photo of the previous day showing no bandage, etc etc.
I could right pages of reasons why I believe I am very happy this murderer is in jail.
Instead of questioniing the supporters of the convictions, think about why tv shows, libertarian lawyers, lower middle class women and people like yourself support the murderer Sue Neill Fraser. Ratings, feel good for a cause, family loyalty is understandable, but just because you are unhappy with another case like Lindy Chamberlain or Gay doesn’t hold value in this case.
Think about the hurt you supporters of a murderer are doing to Bob Chappels family. Dr Lozo on this forum has more wisdom than myself and he’s right when none of you come up with any new compelling legally obtained evidence in your arguement.
You are welcome to challenge me with your evidence If its because there’s no body or the homeless girls DNA was found thats not new. If its because you don’t like Tasmanian justice in THIS case explain why. But please do not reply because you saw another case you don’t like or you don’t think a woman in a wheelchair with tidy hair cannot murder her husband.
Steve
August 27, 2017 at 17:06
#29; Wondering if you could list the extensive forensic evidence? If that’s too hard, perhaps just list any evidence that doesn’t fall under the description of circumstantial?
Dr Peter Lozo
August 27, 2017 at 18:44
#29 John W
https://www.google.com.au/search?source=hp&ei=-JyjWdrqKMr08AWUzbXYBQ&q=forensic+evidence&oq=forensic+evide&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0l5.2060.8899.0.10143.15.15.0.5.5.0.391.4714.2-7j8.15.0….0…1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.15.3310.3..41j0i131k1.n5RIjNFYVqw
There is absolutely NO scientific evidence linking Sue to the crime; nor is there any scientific evidence linking the two “vagrant” men to the crime scene (the Four Winds yacht). But there is scientific evidence  (DNA) linking MV to the crime scene.
The evidence against Sue is entirely circumstantial. Steve is correct.
Johann Hulz
August 27, 2017 at 20:31
#30 – All forensic evidence is circumstantial as no forensic evidence points conclusivley to someone’s guilt.
Steve
August 27, 2017 at 23:15
#32; Interesting point Johann. I suspect I am guilty of using language loosely. You are quite correct, unless it’s direct evidence such as an eye witness or photographic, it’s all circumstantial.
I shall re-phrase my question to John;
#29; Wondering if you could list the extensive forensic evidence?
William Boeder
August 28, 2017 at 01:01
I know of a course that has passed through this State’s Supreme Court that had the jury stacked with 2 persons of strong influencing demeanour that swung the rest of the jury from non-guilty to guilty.
John Wiseman
August 28, 2017 at 02:54
Yes got forensic mixed with scientific. Could I claim the dna test on SNF jacket in Margaret St as forensic? It proved she lied about ownership after it was left on the fence on the night she murdered her husband.
Could I claim she destroyed forensic evidence by touching items on Four Winds under police escort?
The telephone to call *10# at 3.00am would have had fingerprint tests to prove Sue Neill Fraser called surely? But of course its circumstantial why she called that number, everyone does it at 3.00am on the night their husband goes missing!
No one answered me on the free the murderer case to inform me of the reason they believe SNF is innocent.
Steve
August 28, 2017 at 13:10
#35; DNA test is scientific. Scientific is also circumstantial.
A jacket on a fence is a jacket on a fence. It does not prove the owner committed murder, it merely suggests that someone who had access to where the jacket was stored, most likely left it there.
Fingerprints aren’t time and date stamped. Soon you’ll be saying that her DNA on the yacht is evidence! While you consider that, perhaps consider why SNF would have bothered to sink the yacht that apparently was the motive for the crime?
Criminals generally burn cars, sink boats etc, to destroy the evidence of their presence. SNF had no need to do that. Had the boat not been sinking, she could have pottered out there the next morning, tidied up any loose ends in daylight and left it to the afternoon to begin worrying about her husband. Remember, she was the last person to see him alive (apart from whoever killed him). Had she been the murderer, she could have come up with any number of stories to explain why she didn’t expect to see him on the yacht in the morning.
Most murderers are encumbered by the body and the proximity of other people. No body, boat on mooring and the last person to speak to the victim. Why would anyone throw such an advantage away by sinking their own boat?
Dr Peter Lozo
August 28, 2017 at 17:15
#35 John
– Forensic evidence means scientific evidence.
– Forensic evidence (DNA) from the red jacked proves that SNF was in contact with that jacket but it doesn’t link Sue to the crime.
– The circumstances concerning that red jacket (where it was found and when; Sue’s DNA on it, and the fact that Sue initially denied it being hers) is just another small cog of circumstantial evidence that needs to be integrated with the rest of the circumstantial evidence that makes a strong (but complex) case for Sue’s guilt.
– Since Sue has been on Four Winds many times before Bob’s disappearance one cannot argue that whatever DNA evidence (if any) from her was found on the winch that it was deposited during the winching of the body. But her actions of touching it when told by the police not to touch anything can be taken to mean that she was probably trying to justify presence of her DNA on the winch. I don’t think the forensic scientists recovered any of her DNA from the winch (or any other area they looked at, if I recall correctly).
– since Sue used her landline many times before 3:08 am on 27th Jan (the last being several hours earlier when talking to her daughter, mother, Mr King) the presence of her DNA on her landline phone would have been expected anyway and thus it cannot be used to say that it was her who dialled *10# at 3:08 am (someone else could have worn gloves and dialled). But the circumstance was that no-one else was with her at her home that night. So, the implication is that it was her who dialled *10# at 3:08 am. Just another clog in a complex circumstantial case.
Steve
August 28, 2017 at 17:51
#37; I don’t believe the jacket in question was specifically a personal garment belonging to SNF. Having owned a reasonable size boat myself, you have all sorts of jackets and the such like kicking about. A nice day when you were on shore can be something else when you’re out on the water and miscellaneous outer garments are very useful. My impression is that the jacket fell under this category, rather than being a fashionable item worn exclusively by SNF.
The problem with this case, composed of small cogs of circumstantial evidence, is that there is no central “sun gear” tying them all together, apart from a belief in her guilt. This belief appears to be generally founded on the logic that innocent people don’t tell lies. The problem with this logic is that sometimes innocent people do tell lies. They may be genuinely mistaken, they may be flustered and confused, they may be covering up something shameful that has no connection with the crime or they might be covering for someone else.
Telling lies, owning a jacket, making a call to *10# and touching a winch on her own boat are not proof of murder and don’t come within coeee of being “beyond reasonable doubt”, let alone “no other credible alternative”.
To get over the BRD line you need a court that allows flights of fancy from the prosecution, pictures of dinghies glowing with luminol and a lot of “innocent people don’t tell lies” rhetoric.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 28, 2017 at 17:57
#36 Steve
If you read the trial transcript carefully you will find that the yacht was insured.
To my mind, Sue had at least two very good reasons to scuttle the yacht (or attempt to scuttle the yacht):
1. To destroy whatever forensic evidence she thought may lead to the discovery of what exactly occurred below the deck.
2. The yacht had lots of mechanical problems during and after its delivery to Hobart. Bob and Sue has spent around $45K on various repairs by the 26 Jan 2009, and (allegedly) the yacht still had some problems that Bob was attending to on that fateful afternoon. The yacht was too problematic but it was insured.
3. By sinking the yacht, Sue would have solved both of the above problems and could have been paid out from the insurance company.
Steve
August 28, 2017 at 22:21
#39; C’mon Peter. You really are clutching at straws. I wouldn’t mind if you just came out and stated that your personal opinion is that she is guilty but you keep pretending there’s some sort of scientific logic to your viewpoint.
In my younger years I spent a period of time in the professional fishing industry. As a side line, I used to do a bit of salvage work. I’d spent most of my life messing about with boats and it was a bit of fun. It also gave me a pretty good insight into the world of marine insurance, something most experienced boat owners would also be aware of.
It’s not like cars, where a few good scratches and a shudder in the steering is a write-off. Sink your yacht, they’ll re-float it, tidy it back up to how it was and hand it back to you. If SNF was after an insurance write-off, she’d have set fire to it or left the gas on. Let’s face it, if the objective was to get rid of the husband and claim insurance on the yacht, there’s better places to do it than on moorings!
The big advantage of sinking a yacht is that it is quiet and discrete. Works very well for people who have no right to be there and want to destroy evidence of their presence. Were it a car, they’d drive it up a bush track somewhere and torch it, but it’s hard to do that inconspicuously with a yacht on moorings.
If SNF were the guilty party, she’d have been better served by slipping the mooring and letting the yacht drift. That’d be more likely to write it off than a gentle immersion at moorings. Yacht ends up on the shore somewhere. No sign of owner who presumably went over the side trying to save the yacht.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 29, 2017 at 01:19
#41 Steve
1. I stated my personal opinion on Sue’s guilt as a comment to another TT article over two years ago after my initial analysis of the trial evidence and the RTI information discovered by Barbara Etter. I do not need to keep restating the obvious.
2. I also stated about a year ago that I concluded that SNF supporters have a lot of misconception about the evidence in this case.
See #1
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/pr-article/4-million-minutes-for-sue-neill-fraser/
3. This current article is about the ‘explosive’ developments of this year. I am hoping that people who are submitting comments to this article focus on this rather than on what had been dealt with quite extensively on TT over the past few years.
Cheers,
Peter
[Ps: I don’t see any value in rambling comments that aren’t focussed but briefly skip over a number of issues without providing a detailed analysis on any. I think that you are just venting your frustration and are submitting comments that I perceive as non-analytical and currently irrelevant to the issue at hand].
James
August 29, 2017 at 01:36
#38 Steve
The central “sun gear,” as you unusually describe it, was Neill-Fraser’s repeated dishonesty throughout the entire case. She lied, and lied, and lied, during police interviews from day one, and during her testimony in the trial itself. And she never came up with any coherent explanations for any of her lies.
Downplaying or ignoring Neill-Fraser’s repeated self-serving lies is the key to believing that she’s innocent.
#41 Steve
If the yacht drifted or just washed up on the shore, the DNA and blood evidence wouldn’t have been contaminated. Your theory is clearly sub-par when compared to sinking the yacht and flooding the cabin.
Invicta
August 29, 2017 at 02:14
# 40 Mr Chappell could, indeed, still be alive. As I’ve noted previously, none of the myriad ‘armchair expert’ opinions on this case that purport to ‘prove’ Ms Neill-Fraser’s guilt, have successfully addressed the prosecution’s failure to establish that guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
There was a reasonable alternative explanation for the events on the Four Winds – which may, or may not have included Mr Chappell’s murder – and that arose from the presence of DNA on the yacht belonging to a homeless person with known criminal connections.
The conviction was patently unsafe, according to the relevant standard of proof.
Johann Hulz
August 29, 2017 at 09:58
#40 – “How can anyone be guilty under those circumstances? Who could say Bob couldn’t still be alive?”
Your premise that no one can be guilty when there are no witnesses to the murder and there is no body is a common proposition that is provided against the conviction. Many murder cases involve an emotional element and a death occurring in the “heat of the moment”. Therefore a body is located and there is often a straightforward nexus between the death and the perpetrator. It is not uncommon that there are no witnesses to a murder, especially domestic murders.
There are a number of cases where no body is found. Concealing the body does create difficulties for an investigation, but that doesn’t mean that circumstancial evidence cannot be used to create a case that can satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt that a murder occurred. It is not that uncommon that a body is not located but a trial and conviction can still occur (Refer to the NSW case involving Bruce Burrell and the NT case involving Bradley Murdoch – to name just two cases).
As to Bob still being alive – again the probability of his death needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances the boat was found in without him present, the fact that there was no evidence ever obtained of him having left Tasmania, he had not accessed any money and it was unheard of that he would not contact family or friends etc. This must have satisfied the jury that there was no other explanation. (NB: coronial cases involving missing people who were suicidal often find that the person must have died on a similar basis). Even SNF accepted in her evidence in court that he could not still be alive.
In recent posts there has also been debate about forensic evidence. The CSI effect appears to be alive and well amongst some of the contributers, especially when they start talking about testing for SNF’s DNA on locations where you would expect her DNA to be present in any event. Most cases, as does this one, rely heavily on other forms of evidence. (That doesn’t mean forensic evidence should be discarded).
Steve
August 29, 2017 at 12:34
#42; “Venting my frustration”? What on earth have I got to be frustrated about? The reality is that I’ve spent the last week recovering from the flue and have had time available to respond to some of the nonsense you spout on this subject.
Unlike yourself, I don’t have a firm opinion on whether SNF is innocent or guilty. I do however think her conviction was based far more on a sell job by the prosecution than on any facts; inferred or otherwise.
Given the nature of the case against SNF, it is difficult to critically analyse it as there really is nothing to analyse. Hence I point out the logical failures. It is easy to state that she knew about yachts, so was able to use a winch and a seacock, but it’s harder to take the next step and say that if she knew about yachts, she’d also know that sinking the yacht was likely to be a very fast way to draw attention to the fact that something was amiss. To the experienced eye, a moored yacht taking water is obvious and is a prompt for immediate action, whether it be a phone call or some more practical action.
“James” (#43)suggests that sinking the yacht was a reliable means of destroying DNA evidence. Why would SNF have been concerned about DNA on her own yacht? Her best hope for removing evidence was for no-one to go near the yacht until she’d had a good look around in daylight.
BTW, the “sun gear” was in response to Peter’s “cogs”. It’s the large central gear in a planetary gear system, around which minor gears rotate. I believe the metaphor to be apt, as all the little bits of circumstantial evidence in this case are like cogs. Mesh them together and they make a case, however due to the lack of any solid central piece of evidence, they can be dismantled and re-arranged to make a different case. This is why I believe the conviction to be unsound as there are other credible alternatives.
Richard Kopf
August 29, 2017 at 12:50
#40 Using your theory, the way to carry out the perfect murder is to hide the body. No body, no crime. If that became the law I am sure that the missing persons’ statistics would soar.
The following is pure supposition but to kill a spouse and avoid a murder charge, claiming self defence would have posed an option for SNF. But if the body was repeatedly violated in a frenzied attack, this option could not be available. What then? Dispose of the body!
Isla MacGregor
August 30, 2017 at 14:57
Only a Commission of Inquiry can uncover what I see as the web of injustices, corruption and collusion in this tragic case in which an innocent woman, in my view, continues to be imprisoned for a crime allegedly committed for which there never has been any evidence, in my view.
(edited)
Richard Kopf
August 30, 2017 at 15:37
I would like to share this with your readers.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/death-on-the-derwent-in-search-of-the-truth-20170825-gy4aui.htm
Andrew
August 30, 2017 at 22:00
This is an interesting case. Could somebody who is familiar with the details please explain how the *10# call incriminated Ms Neill-Fraser (as was alleged) and also what was the explanation for her incorrect account of her movements? I have read that it was to protect a family member – how did it do that? Thanks.
Johann Hulz
August 30, 2017 at 22:29
#50 I suspect the answers you receive will depend upon which camp the responder sits in.
The *10# call doesn’t incriminate SNF. It cast doubt on her version that she was at home all night as she had first alluded to.
There were a few differing accounts for her movements. She did receive a call from BCs daughter who was apparently concerned for him and that was the reason she gave for going to the waterfront later in the night to check on the boat from shore. You might wonder, why she didn’t simply ring BC to check on his welfare, as she had left the mobile phone with him.