Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


An Inconvenient Woman: a review …

*Pic: Yacht at the centre … Four Winds

Tasmanian Theatre Company
DIRECTOR: Aidan Fennessey
WRITER: Brian Peddie
CAST: Anne Cordiner, Jeff Michel, Joe Clements, Colin Dean, Craig Irons

Pop Up Theatre No. 9, Evans St Hobart until Saturday November 4th

Having vaguely followed the Susan Neill-Fraser saga over the last few years, I was very keen to see how the story would be handled theatrically–and the first and loudest point I’ll make is that An Inconvenient Woman is well worth seeing. (Be wary if you’re sensitive to strobe lighting, though – a warning that admittedly is curiously absent from audience briefing signs about the show’s content.)

In his note in the program, writer Brian Peddie admits to having a fear of the law; one of several interesting inferences that his script seems to provide is that, on a bad day, any one of us might be capable of ending up in the situation in which Susan currently finds herself. (Where did you park your car this time last week?) I was anxious before viewing the play that it would somehow be a kind of apologia for her and it’s not – but on the other hand, I’m not sure that it does Neill-Fraser many favours, either. Perhaps it wasn’t intended to, but we’ll get back to that.

The most striking thing about An Inconvenient Woman is its staging. A 60-metre long performance space, with much of the action taking place well away from the audience, threatens to be alienating–and the English teacher in me can’t help but think METAPHOR! Two rows of vertically-rigged fluorescent tubes provide several dramatic lighting effects, in transitions between scenes and so on. Slowly, as the drama progresses, Anne Cordiner in the role of Susan Neill-Fraser makes her away towards the audience until the point at which she is sentenced (spoiler alert!), when she is standing within a couple of metres. The movement of the actors is exquisitely choreographed, at times resembling something of a slow dance.

Anne Cordiner as Neill-Fraser effects a powerful fragility, and her performance is excellent.

(The other actors all play multiple roles, from police to lawyers to witnesses to family members. All are uniformly strong despite some sound glitches on the night I attended, distraction from a live music performance at a neighbouring venue notwithstanding.) That fragility, arguably, is what brings Fraser undone; the core underlying inference of the script is that Neill-Fraser was a terrible witness, unable to be confident in many of her recollections about key events on the day Bob Chappell disappeared – such as where she parked her car in Sandy Bay, or whether she went to Bunnings on the afternoon in question. In the absence of such confidence, the prosecution and others have inferred that there must be some degree of guilt – enough, at least, to warrant a conviction, with which several judges have agreed at trial and appeal level.

And this is where the script gets interesting. While there appears to be no attempt at passing judgement (pardon the pun, I get the impression that we are at least invited to feel sorry for her – she is a victim of her own confusion as much as anything. There is at least one reference to her being interviewed by police on her own, which in its own right is inferred as some sort of abuse of justice. I’m not interested in arguing the merits or otherwise of the case for or against Neill-Fraser, but I am interested in how Peddie’s script positions her – and my first impression on walking out of the show was that she’s guilty of nothing more than being a ditherer. On reflection I don’t think it’s quite that simple either.

Great slabs of the script are verbatim – relying heavily on court transcripts, letters and so on – so we as an audience can hear the evidence and we hear Neill-Fraser trying to defend herself. Really, it’s not a pretty sight and in some ways the title of the play is rather an understatement. With so much at stake, I can’t fathom why you wouldn’t make more of an effort to be definitive about important details relating to your movements on the afternoon/evening in question. Yet Neill-Fraser seems to make judgements about what to disclose – ‘I didn’t think it was important’ – that only serve to condemn her.

As a slice of intrigue drawn from the annals of Tasmania’s (currently) most notorious legal case, An Inconvenient Woman is well structured, beautifully staged and strongly performed. As a showcase for Tasmania’s incredibly strong theatre scene, it is very highly commended.

As the portrait of a woman caught in an intractable legal system I think it’s less successful dramatically, perhaps only because the ending of this story has yet to be written (and because so much of it is already in the public domain).

In trying not to take sides, though, I think it has taken one. Perhaps this was unavoidable, despite everyone’s best intentions, but if Neill-Fraser is ever exonerated then this play will have laid the groundwork that explains why, or at least some of it.

As a result, An Inconvenient Woman succeeds as the sort of art that poses more dangerous questions than it provides safe answers.

*Cameron Hindrum writes, teaches and lives in Launceston. His first play I Am A Lake is set to tour Tasmania early in 2018, and his second is currently in development with the Cowshed, Blue Cow Theatre’s scriptwriting mentorship program.

ABC: Sue Neill-Fraser appeal: Key defence witness tells court he is willing to lie for her

ABC: Susan Neill-Fraser: The killing of Bob Chappell and the ‘Justice For Sue’ campaign to free convicted murderer

ABC: Sue Neill-Fraser: DNA could have been transferred onto boat, expert concedes

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    April 2, 2018 at 2:54 pm

    To ‘Johann Hulz’ (#20) who, in relation to my #17, wrote “Your notes are also at odds with the Mercury.”: While working-up my notes of the 2nd appeal hearings (as well as those of others, media included), I had made the following record of that part of Gleeson’s evidence:

    Q Are you prepared to lie to get Sue Neill-Fraser out?
    A – No

    Following the question being re-put (re-worded), Gleeson answered:
    A – Yes.

    [-It was my impression that in court, Gleeson admitted that at an earlier stage he had been prepared to lie to get SN-F out.

    -It was not my impression that he was admitting to being prepared to lie in the evidence that he was giving to the court that day [30Oct2017]]

    The Mercury report referred to by Johann Hulz included the following:

    Q “You are prepared to lie to get Neill-Fraser off,” Mr Coates said.
    A “Yes, because the police are lying,” the man said.

    I note that Matthew Denholm’s report (The Australian 31Oct2017) ‘Yelling witness admits to changing story after ‘car boot threat” renders the matter in this way:

    He denied that this was a lie but conceded he had been willing to lie to help Neill-Fraser in relation to providing photo identifications to one of her lawyers.

    I offer the following comment: A number of the media report Gleeson as saying ‘he was prepared to lie’ etc. Contrast this with ‘A number of the media report Gleeson as having said ‘he was prepared to lie’ etc. See the pluperfect tense and in my opinion, some journalists’ apparent failure to accurately report that his preparedness to lie was, rather than in the then-present-tense court hearing, but at an earlier time. In my view, Denholm gets it right and gives the more accurate account of Gleeson’s admission: in court, Gleeson conceded he had been willing to lie rather than that he was willing to lie (i.e., to the court in October2017). – gfs

  2. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 13, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    A Comparative Lie Detection Test

    Isla, Lynn, Garry, Johann,..

    Perhaps you (together with Eve As might consider following through with my proposal for a lie detection test using two different lie detection technology, applied to Meaghan Vass and Susan Neill-Fraser. 

    Please see:

    1. #482 # 483





    Now, I would be very happy to help prepare a letter to Mr Charles Wooley and the 60 Mins. The idea is that 60 Mins organises, funds and films two lie detection tests on Susan Neill-Fraser and Meaghan Vass (Meaghan might be interested in participating if there is a substantial financial incentive).

    The test must be a neutral test performed by independent experts in the two different detection technologies I mention on the referenced links.


  3. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 3, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    On the winching issue

    1. I’ve decided to write a comprehensive TT article on this issue. That way the followers of the case can compare my opinion to any past or future police or scientific opinions. Expect it by the end of this month.

    2. Basically, three different phases of using the winch are required for a physically weak person to get a 65 kg body from below the deck onto the dinghy via the stern gate. Each phase requires a different arrangement of the rope. The first phase is concerned in getting the body from below the deck onto the deck next to the winch. The second phase is concerned in getting the body from there to the edge of the stern gate. The third phase is concerned in getting the body lowered and positioned onto the dinghy for subsequent easy push into the water. The whole process is technically simple enough and is physically sufficiently easy to do for someone who is experienced with the yacht, its winches and its dinghy but it takes a lot of time to set up and execute.

    3. I wasn’t in Hobart to see the video but have read a very brief note (probably incomplete) that Dr Bob Moles edited and uploaded onto his Networked Knowledge website (in the What’s New section).

    4. Those who are interested can scan other TT articles on the case for my posts on this or other (non-legal) issues.

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Applied Physicist/Perceptual Scientist
    Adelaide, SA

  4. lola moth

    November 3, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    #5 silencer
    I think the issue of witnesses not coming forward is a problem the world over. One minute you are an ordinary citizen and then something that you see turns your life upside-down. Your life and the lives of those around you can be threatened. You can be beaten until you promise not to tell anyone what you saw. Your life will change forever because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is so much easier to pretend you saw nothing, even when others know you are lying.

    It is unfair when people withhold evidence that could set an innocent person free, but witnesses need to protect themselves first. Witness protection by the state is inadequate. Once a witness has given evidence he/she is dropped back into a world of fear, and left to protect themselves.

    I do not wonder at injustice anymore as justice can have too high a price for innocent bystanders.

  5. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 3, 2017 at 12:02 am

    #38 Johann

    I was part way through preparing a follow-up to my #37 when I  saw the email from TT with your question:

    “Is that the same Mark Reynolds that Lloyd Rayney was reportedly
    threatened to seek defamation proceedings against?”

    There is a reference to a “crime scene expert Dr Mark Reynolds”

    in the recent article related to the current appeal by Sue:


    The only “crime scene expert” by name Dr Mark Reynolds that I could find on internet is Dr Mark Reynolds from WA who worked for WA Police and was rewarded with the Australia Police Medal (APM). He would be known to Barbara Etter APM and possibly to Tom Percy QC. Hence why I feel confident that I very quickly narrowed onto the correct Dr Mark Reynolds.

    Last night I found his CV on Dr Bob Moles’ website Networked Knowledge. This further gave me confidence that I got the correct person because Dr Moles is a big supporter of Sue (he  has helped her defence team) and because he uploaded Mark’s CV a few weeks ago.

     You can see Dr Reynolds’ CV in the Whats New section


    Click on the entry for 20th October titled

    “Mark Reynolds’ curriculum vitae – Mark is a forensic expert from Western Australia

    It is pretty obvious that Dr Reynolds is a biological forensic scientist and not an applied physicist nor a mechanical engineer (the two disciplines that are most relevant to the winching scenario).His expertise might have been better suited to providing expert opinion on the blood splatter than the science and the mechanics of winching a dead body. It beats me why he was recently reported to be a “winching expert” who will provide new insight into this case. I think that Dr Reynolds has an impressive CV but it is not related to what he is supposed to provide expert opinion on!  

    I have no experience with yachts and winches (other than once using a winch to pull a boat onto its trailer) but as an applied physicist I could very easily configure the winch on Four Winds to winch a few hundred kilos from below the deck and across the deck and then down onto a dinghy! I also know the mechanics (and the mathematics) behind winches. Hence why I was able to provide a very thorough analysis on this issue after I studied the geometry of Four Winds (from various photos and yotube videos). Some of my analysis on this issue appears on other TT articles.

    As for your question: he is most probably the same  person you mentioned in connection with the WA case.

  6. Johann Hulz

    November 2, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    37. Is that the same Mark Reynolds that Lloyd Rayney was reportedly threatened to seek defamation proceedings against?


    I didn’t realise what the background of the next expert was. It will be interesting to see if he is the “silver bullett” that defence were talking about.

  7. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 2, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    #34 Johann,

    I’d like to see how a Blood Splatter Analysis expert (Dr Mark Reynolds) will try to argue against the winching scenario? It will be a laugh to see a biogical forensic scientist argue about the matters that belong in the domain of physical science and mechanical engineering. I may take a trip to Hobart in March to see what nonsense he will come up with.

  8. Johann Hulz

    November 2, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    34. Very interesting analysis. Hard to counter that with a no-motive argument.

    Add to that the comments that she was intending on leaving him, which came from a witness who had nothing to gain from giving that account.

  9. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 2, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    #30 Lynn

    Had you seen the video that was shown in the Court on Wednesday you would have learned how physically easy it would have been for Sue to winch Bob’s body out from below the deck (then across the deck and then lowering the body , using the winch as a pulley, onto the side of the dinghy (across the bow) for easy push into the water). My analyis of the mechanics and the yacht’s geometry led me conclude that the wrist injury on Sue’s left hand was most probably caused when the winch was used as a pulley. In this scenario the rope would have been wrapped around the winch drum in the oposite to the usual way so that the body can be lowered to the dinghy via the stern gate which is perfectly aligned with the direction of the winch rotation (note that the winch drum turns only in one direction; in this case it is the clockwise direction, i.e exactly towards the stern gate). The free side of the rope would needed to have been held by the left hand of the operator and then slowly released whilst the weight of the body would do the pulling (it is typical to wrap the rope around one’s wrist to get a better grip on the rope).

    The current owner of Four Winds said that it would take human force of 1kg for each 27 kilograms of weight pulled by the winch. The winch thus has a power ratio of 27:1 (more than my own hypothetical scenario of 20:1 that I wrote about some time ago). Thus, it would take a minimum human force of about just over 2kg (2 litres of milk!) to turn the winch handle with sufficient force to overcome the resistance of a dead weight of 65 kgs. Thus, it would have been quite easy to use that winch to winch Bob’s body from below the deck using that particular winch!! But it would take some time because many turns of the winch handle would have been required. I estimate that about 12 full turns of the winch handle would have been required for each one metre of the distance by which the body is pulled with that winch.

    Thus, what you and other SNF supporters (including the medico) wrote on

    concerning the winching was based on the lack of sufficient knowledge of the mechanics behind yacht winches.

    Also note that the photo of the dinghy shows that the luminol reaction was heavilly concentrated on one side of the dinghy (the starboard side), particularly next to the bow. There is hardly any reaction on the portside of the dinghy (other than an interesting spot next to a handle on the tube, exactly where one would place a left hand when operating the motor with their right hand). This suggests to me that the cleaning that was done (with whatever cleaning agent (bleach) was used) was done on the starboard side. Had the purpose of the cleaning been to clean spilled petrol (as Sue claimed to have done to clean the dinghy before the arrival of Sue’s sister) then one would have expected luminol reaction to have been more or less spread evenly and across the whole floor of the dinghy. I suggest that the body was lowered to rest across the right hand side of the bow and that the dinghy operator was sitting on the left side at rear and operating the motor handle with their right hand.

  10. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 2, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    #30 Lynn

    1. I did some rough estimates last night and worked out that under the terms of the will Sue would have been finacially better off by about $700K.

    2. Had Sue left Bob before the defacto property law changed on 1st March 2009 then she would have walked away with practically nothing (other than what was hers before she started living with Bob).

    3. Had Bob lived and Sue left him after 2nd March 2009 then Bob would have had to give her around $200K – $300K (about half a million dollars less than what Sue would have gotten under the terms of the will). This does not factor in legal costs associated with property settlement. This calculation also does not factor in Sue’s property (as I don’t know its value). Basically Sue would have been entitled to 50% of the net increase in Bob’s estate during the 18 or so years they were together (minus 50% of the net increase in Sue’s estate during the same years).

    4. Your understanding of Bob’s will is incorrect. Under the terms of the will, Sue would have gotten all the material possesions (the house, the car, etc) and 50 percent of the superannuation (after debts were paid off). The other 50% of the superannuation was to be distributed to Bob’s children and sister. But if Sue did not survive Bob by more than 30 days then the will also provides for Sue’s daughters. (see page 612 of the Trial Transcript).

    In summary: Sue did have a substantial financial motive (about $500K). She was aware of the contents of the will before Bob’s disapperance.

  11. Johann Hulz

    November 1, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    30. “Once she was convicted she could not inherit anything”

    Yes – I suppose that’s what people try to avoid – being convicted of being involved in someone’s death. That someone who they could benefit from when they are dead.

  12. Johann Hulz

    November 1, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    29. Yes, most murder cases have a body. Most culpable homicides occur in the heat of the moment. There have been a number of murder cases where the body has been hidden, but they were later located. In Tasmania there was the cases of Eaton and Yu. But not all bodies are recovered yet convictions on circumstancial evidence can still occur – refer to the Whelan case and also Falconio.

    Yes the verdict should be beyond reasonable doubt. Just because it is someone’s opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean that the conviction was unsound. It is quite incredible to think that anyone can make that confident assessment, given the comments by the Full Court, High Court and the Coroner. But hey what would they know compared to someone who has a personal bias.

  13. Johann Hulz

    November 1, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    27. I can advise that the comment attributed to the Chappell by the media was the “verdict speaks for itself”.

  14. Lynn Giddings

    November 1, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    #18, Johann Hulz: There was no financial motive for Sue Neill-Fraser to murder Bob Chappell and their relationship was not over; they were planning to visit the Galapagos Islands, part of Ecuador, on their way to visit Bob’s sister who lives in Ecuador.
    Bob Chappell was not wealthy in the sense of ‘filthy rich’, only to working people on an ordinary wage and, to the middle class, I imagine he would be described as ‘comfortable’. Nor was he a doctor although he worked in the oncology section of a hospital.
    He was worth more to Sue alive in every respect. I can’t remember all the details but he had a modest house in West Hobart, a car, half a yacht and superannuation somewhere around $1,000,000. I don’t know if he also had a mortgage.
    As I understand it, he willed money to his 3 children, his sister and also to Sue’s 2 daughters. Divide that by 6 and you have around $160,000, give or take some, depending on the proportions to the individuals.
    To a woman with property, money and income in her own right, why would she murder her partner for pocket money? Once she was convicted she could not inherit anything, her share going to the Chappell family; maybe her daughters received their share.

  15. Lynn Giddings

    November 1, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    #15 Johann Hulz: ‘Without a body’ makes Sue Neill-Fraser’s case different from most circumstantial cases. Then there was no weapon, no eye witness, no motive and no confession as well. Importantly, the verdict should be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. A circumstantial case like this means the Crown has no hard evidence. It was indeed an unsafe verdict.

  16. Dr Peter Lozo

    November 1, 2017 at 4:26 pm


    Is Patrick (Sue’s only sibling) supporting her?


    Too bad that Sue’s memory failed her so badly for a critical 5 hour block (4pm – 9pm) Australia Day and then again for a critical 4 block later that night-early the next morning (11pm – 3:08am). That is 9 missing hours in Sue’s life between 4pm and 3am!! Did she try to recall (via associations, retracing her steps, hypnosis)?

  17. John Wiseman

    November 1, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    #24 You mention Sue Neill Frasers in-law family are strong supporters. Are any of Bob Chappell’s family supporting her?

  18. john hayward

    October 31, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    I can’t overlook the character of the Tas system where I watched an SC judge first refused to accept the evidence of the acknowledged expert witness on the geology of Tasmanian karst, then the expert advice of the geomorphologist employed by the respondent local government which agreed with it, instead of relying on the lack of any expert advice from government sources to infer there was no expert advice against it.

    Halloween is a year-round affair in some places.

    John Hayward

  19. Johann Hulz

    October 30, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    #24 … I would suggest that the support given by her family says more about their character.

  20. Mieneke Haynes

    October 30, 2017 at 1:21 pm

    Yes they should have, but they did not.

    Sue’s ex-husband sat through her trial every day, supporting her even though there were persistent rumors that she had killed him as well. He told me “I knew Sue better than most. but I never had to duck.”

    Sue’s ex-mother in law and other members of the in-law family are strong supporters of Sue as well. What does that say about her character?

  21. Cameron Hindrum

    October 30, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    #21 … I am not a lawyer and my knowledge of this case is fairly general, but shouldn’t her defence team, at her original trial, have organised character testimony from family, friends and so on? Just curious.

  22. Cameron Hindrum

    October 30, 2017 at 9:27 am

    No. 13 I’ll provide the obvious response: I don’t think the Tasmanian Theatre Company is in the business of mounting Royal Commissions, although arguably it might be the only way we’ll ever see one.

    Clearly it would be difficult to address perceived shortcomings in Tasmanian ‘justice culture’ in a 70-minute piece of theatre. So the focus is on a specific situation and individual, perhaps (highly arguably) as representative of the whole.

  23. Mieneke Haynes

    October 30, 2017 at 9:07 am

    One year before the trial Sue was refused bail because she had the means to escape. Sue’s wealth was used whenever it suited.
    With Bob alive she would have received more anyway. She could have just left him.
    But anyone who knew Sue just a little bit knew that money does not motivate her. None of her family and friends ever testified in court about her character.

  24. Johann Hulz

    October 30, 2017 at 8:23 am

    #17 … He also said he had been working for ASIO. Your notes are also at odds with the Mercury.

  25. Johann Hulz

    October 29, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    “She was motivated by the knowledge the relationship was over, and that Mr Chappell – a wealthy Hobart doctor – was worth more to her dead than alive.”


  26. Garry Stannus

    October 29, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    The question was (as I recall) did he say at one time was he willing to do so…

    He also told the court that he would not (present tense) lie to protect her. He impressed those assembled, far more than the first witness, who screamed, stamped, wept, threw, swore, slammed yelled, yelled and yelled till she was let go. We learnt two things from her: that she still has a bad memory and that she is in fear of something (not the law).

    Of course, we learnt more than that, but why bother? Gleeson actually impressed us, and the DPP may have got the ABC to give TGC something to get cryptic about, but actually, we were astonished to hear his evidence … evidence of murders and of police corruption. Yes, he told us of a Sandy Bay brothel, he told the court it was connected to the Rebels motor cycle gang and told the court it was owned by Police Detectives. His evidence was challenged by the DPP on only one point that I recall: whether he’d once said he’d lie to protect SNF. He said that he had said that and he said that he would not lie to protect her (now). My notes are at odds with the ABC headline, which reads: “Key defence witness tells court he is willing to lie for her”

    These comments are from my written notes, taken over this, the first day of Sue Neill-Fraser’s application for a second appeal.

  27. Johann Hulz

    October 29, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    14. When one witness is saying that they were forced to sign a statement and is now not prepared to lie under oath and another witness states that he is prepared to lie it doesn’t look good for the appeal I summise.

  28. Johann Hulz

    October 29, 2017 at 9:29 pm

    It is interesting how #1 deems that the play is a perfect example of why the case was a miscarriage of justice (in my view), yet the reviewer of the play at #7 had a very different perspective on the play. He suggested if the play was accurate as to how it portrayed her then he was not surprised she was behind bars. Remember it is a play (2 hours?) and not an accurate depiction of how the court process played out over many weeks.

    8. might be unaware that if there is no eye witness or confession then a case is circumstantial. If they “came up with circumstantial evidence only” that would mean they came up with a case that indirectly points to her guilt as that is the essence of a circumstantial case.


  29. TGC

    October 29, 2017 at 6:30 pm

    A problem has suddenly arisen in this case which appears to disfavour Sue Neil-Fraser.

  30. john hayward

    October 29, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    If the play is focussing on the fallibility of the accused rather than on the Tas justice culture, then Hamlet is really all about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern..

    John Hayward

  31. Cameron Hindrum

    October 29, 2017 at 5:30 pm

    It is well done and I’ve not suggested otherwise, but I don’t think it’s as clear as that by any measure. It’s possible that such a response is the play ‘preaching to the converted’.

    And of course we can agree to disagree. I’m not trying to persuade anyone.

  32. Mieneke Haynes

    October 29, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    The writer of the play highlights the devastating impact of an (apparent) miscarriage of justice. It is very well done.

  33. Cameron Hindrum

    October 29, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    No. 8: I am basing my summary only what was either presented or inferred by the play. If you have other information, great. As I state in my review, I’m not sure the play does Neill-Fraser many favours.

    None, or very little, of the articulate, comprehensive clarity you refer to is present in her character in the play. Perhaps that’s an issue you should address with the writer?

  34. jhaswell

    October 29, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Could someone please refresh my memory … was any motive ever attached to the murder?

  35. Mieneke Haynes

    October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    I have seen some of the evidence Sue gave to police in a video played in court and I was amazed at how detailed she could remember things. It probably helped that she had a lifelong habit of making notes in diaries. And by the way: she submitted these diaries to the police, in her eagerness to assist. But even that was turned against her.
    If she was vague at times, especially in those first days after the sudden loss of a loved one, how could that be her fault and cause her to end up in prison? Isn’t it the task of the police to find out facts? They speculated and came up with circumstantial evidence only (we know now that a lot of it was wrong, in my opinion). As the play showed so brilliantly: no evidence became (alleged) evidence.

  36. Cameron Hindrum

    October 29, 2017 at 12:56 am

    The evidence against Neill-Fraser is entirely circumstantial, there’s no doubt about that. However, and this is a point that the play tends to reinforce I think, she was a terrible witness for her own defence. It would seem she initially withheld information from the police simply because she felt it wasn’t important to tell them. If anything is going to arouse suspicion in a cynical copper, it’s that sort of thing.

    There’s a scene that opens An Inconvenient Woman in which someone phones Susan looking for Bob on the afternoon or evening of his disapearance–Richard King, I think his name is. If the way Susan answers his queries about where Bob is, is anything like the manner she conveyed to the police, then I have to say I’m not surprised she’s behind bars. She was evasive, vague, uncooperative. Not a good look.

    All of which is by way of saying that there are layers and layers of complexity to this case–and few answers, I suspect, are easily concluded at this stage.

  37. john hayward

    October 28, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    It all sounds reminiscent of the trial over a quarter of a century ago of Lindy Chamberlain, a lady likewise convicted of murder in a yobbo legal system on what was later found to be manifestly inadequate evidence.

    John Hayward

  38. silencer

    October 28, 2017 at 9:33 pm

    If Bob Chappel was not murdered/killed by Sue Neil-Fraser but by someone else, the stakes are high for the person/s who did kill him and those who know about this – the latter will most likely have been silenced with death threats and threats to their families as is often the case. That is quite a disincentive for any person/s involved BUT will continue to be an exceedingly great tragedy for Sue Neil- Fraser and her family. A tangled web indeed that begs the important question about the capacity for effective witness protection in Tasmania/Australia.

  39. Cameron Hindrum

    October 28, 2017 at 8:41 pm

    I wonder if we’re ever really going to know what happened to him. Probably not.

  40. TGC

    October 28, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    It would seem that – in Tasmania anyway – serious’ court’ matters should be subject to being played out on a theatre stage and judgement left to the audiences who could cast their votes as they left the theatre. That way it would be possible to avoid the ‘corruption’ seen to be endemic in the law and politics in Tasmania – not to mention in commerce – and those before the ‘court’ will have a better feeling that they have been dealt with fairly.

  41. Geoffrey Swan

    October 28, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Thank you Cameron, for your review and Isla for your comments. – I’ve just booked our tickets for Wednesday. I’ve followed this case with great interest and from all my research and reading I am very much on the side of this being yet another miscarriage of justice in this fine State of Tasmania.

  42. Isla MacGregor

    October 28, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    I went to see the play last night and if anyone is undecided about what a miscarriage of justice looks like then this is a must-see performance. As the script was in part based on court transcripts it leaves no doubt in my mind that the justice system in Tasmania should be the subject of a Commission of Inquiry into the Sue Neill-Fraser case..

Leave a Reply

To Top