PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Andrew Urban, author of a compelling, authoritative book on The Neill-Fraser prosecution - "Murder by the prosecution" - has set out an excellent, lucid account of Susan Neill-Fraser's "ground-breaking new appeal."
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "It has taken three years to wind its way through the appeal process, which dampens the celebration somewhat, but Neill-Fraser left the court last Thursday with a smile on her face as she was wheeled out in a wheelchair (due to a leg-related health complaint). She has been incarcerated since her arrest in August 2009, charged with the murder of her partner, Bob Chappell, on board their new yacht, Four Winds, on Australia Day 2009. His body has not been found and she has always maintained her innocence. The key to her cell door – if her appeal succeeds – is the DNA found on the deck that was matched with Meaghan Vass, a then 15-year-old homeless girl. Vass last week provided the court an affidavit to the effect that she was indeed on board – in the company of two men who were planning to steal from the yacht – and she had witnessed the murder."
-------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The biggest irony in this week’s granting of leave to appeal is that it is based on exactly the subject, the impact of DNA at the crime scene, on which the 2012 High Court leave to appeal failed. In September 2012, then defence counsel, M. J. Croucher SC, argued that the finding of the DNA was a very important and powerful consideration because it pointed to a hypothesis consistent with Neill-Fraser’s innocence. There was discussion about the potential significance of her evidence with DPP Tim Ellis SC (prosecutor) arguing that there was “nothing else to connect her [Vass] or make her a remotely possible suspect except for the presence of a swab of DNA” (at page 11). Moreover, the DPP argued (page 12):
The core evidence was … she was not on the boat. She had no way of being on the boat. There was nothing credible suggested as to how she could be on the boat.There was no evidence whatsoever – ‘core’ or otherwise – that she was not on the boat, nor that she had no way of being on the boat. Astonishingly, the DPP played down the DNA as if it were the ‘red herring’ he called it at trial. And he confused the question of what the presence of DNA meant, despite referring to it not being at ‘the real scene of the crime’: it did not necessarily mean that Vass was a suspect in the murder. It meant that Vass was present on the yacht when the murder took place – and was a likely source of eyewitness testimony."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "In a historic decision to grant Sue Neill-Fraser leave to appeal
against her 2010 murder conviction, Justice Brett of Tasmania’s Supreme
Court has exercised for the first time the legislation that only
Tasmanian and South Australian parliaments have passed: a further right
to appeal for those convicted of serious crimes whose first appeals have
failed. It has taken three years to wind its way through the appeal process,
which dampens the celebration somewhat, but Neill-Fraser left the court
last Thursday with a smile on her face as she was wheeled out in a
wheelchair (due to a leg-related health complaint). She has been
incarcerated since her arrest in August 2009, charged with the murder of
her partner, Bob Chappell, on board their new yacht, Four Winds, on
Australia Day 2009. His body has not been found and she has always
maintained her innocence. The key to her cell door – if her appeal succeeds – is the DNA found
on the deck that was matched with Meaghan Vass, a then 15-year-old
homeless girl. Vass last week provided the court an affidavit to the
effect that she was indeed on board – in the company of two men who were
planning to steal from the yacht – and she had witnessed the murder.
That followed her tell-all March 10 interview on 60 Minutes
where she said the same things. Vass has been terrified ever since – and
not just of the killers. Police have maintained their confidence in the
investigation and the conviction. The biggest irony in this week’s granting of leave to appeal is that
it is based on exactly the subject, the impact of DNA at the crime
scene, on which the 2012 High Court leave to appeal failed. In September 2012, then defence counsel, M. J. Croucher SC, argued
that the finding of the DNA was a very important and powerful
consideration because it pointed to a hypothesis consistent with
Neill-Fraser’s innocence. There was discussion about the potential
significance of her evidence with DPP Tim Ellis SC arguing that there
was “nothing else to connect her [Vass] or make her a remotely possible
suspect except for the presence of a swab of DNA” (at page 11).
Moreover, the DPP argued (page 12):
The entire story can be read at:
The core evidence was … she was not on the boat. She had no way of being on the boat. There was nothing credible suggested as to how she could be on the boat.There was no evidence whatsoever – ‘core’ or otherwise – that she was not on the boat, nor that she had no way of being on the boat. Astonishingly, the DPP played down the DNA as if it were the ‘red herring’ he called it at trial. And he confused the question of what the presence of DNA meant, despite referring to it not being at ‘the real scene of the crime’: it did not necessarily mean that Vass was a suspect in the murder. It meant that Vass was present on the yacht when the murder took place – and was a likely source of eyewitness testimony. But there are other grounds that can be cited to overturn the conviction once the appeal is taken to court at a date yet to be determined ranging from inadmissible forensic evidence to the prejudicial address to the jury by the prosecution and prejudicial summing up by the judge."
The entire story can be read at:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the entire decision at the link below: (It's the best way to get the full picture - but here are a few passages - just to give you a taste:
The 60 Minutes program:
- "After reserving my decision in this application, the applicant applied to reopen her case for the purpose of presentation of some further evidence. I was told from the bar table, without objection, that the evidence relates to an interview conducted with Ms Vass by a journalist during the course of a 60 Minutes program that was aired on television recently. I was aware from media advertisements for the program that the interview was to be aired, but this did not occur in Tasmania and I have not seen the interview. There was no objection by the respondent to the reopening of the application or to the presentation of the evidence.
- The evidence provided to me consists of an affidavit by Ms Vass. The affidavit purports to have been sworn on 25 February 2019. The affidavit contains direct and detailed admissions of Ms Vass's involvement in events aboard the Four Winds on the relevant night. In particular, Ms Vass states that she was present on the yacht then with two identified male companions. She witnessed at least one of the males assault Mr Chappell. She recalls seeing a lot of blood. The affidavit does not directly address what became of Mr Chappell. Ms Vass claims that she cannot recall leaving the yacht or what happened after the assault.
- In this case, I am satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable case to present to the Court in support of the ground of appeal, and that it is in the interests of justice for leave to be granted. The fresh and compelling evidence to which this decision refers is the evidence of the out of court representations of Ms Vass. Insofar as it has been submitted that the evidence is not reliable, I am satisfied that it would be reasonably open to the Court of Criminal Appeal to accept such evidence as credible and providing a trustworthy basis for fact finding. I reiterate that I am not making a positive determination to that effect. However, I am satisfied that there is nothing about this evidence that would enable me to form a positive conclusion that the Court of Criminal Appeal would necessarily reject the evidence as unreliable.
- In forming this conclusion, I have had regard to Ms Vass's representations within the context provided by some of the other evidence presented by the applicant on this application. The principal piece of evidence providing such context, of course, is the location of Ms Vass's DNA on the yacht, and what Mr Jones has now had to say about that DNA. Other evidence to a greater or lesser extent may also have some relevance in this respect. However, because of the view I have taken about Ms Vass's representations, it is neither necessary nor desirable for me to determine whether any of the other evidence relied upon by the applicant might amount to fresh and compelling evidence."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASSC//2019/10.html?fbclid=IwAR0d5nkrfdjAyXQrSEtYFxhs7T45yJi7gukAeG121nLetsw2iKuoLmH_Yuk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
