PUBLISHER'S NOTE: What a case! : As Author/Blogger Andrew L. Urban describes it on his 'Wrongful Conviction Report)': "A homeless girl’s DNA, a strange grey dinghy, witness misidentification, tunnel vision, no murder weapon, no body, an impossible murder scenario … nothing adds up to a valid murder conviction in the case of Sue Neill-Fraser." (All of this to the backdrop of police facing an ever-crumbling case - and prosecutors desperately trying to save face - as opposed to putting an end to a very public miscarriage of justice. Stay tuned. HL.)
----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "A Supreme Court jury deliberated for more than 18 hours before unanimously finding Neill-Fraser guilty of murder. Then-director of public prosecutions, Tim Ellis SC, urged the jury to conclude that Neill-Fraser had told numerous lies in the days and months after Mr Chappell's disappearance, and that those lies had been told out of a consciousness of guilt. Neill-Fraser's lawyer, the late David Gunson SC, told the jury Mr Ellis' arguments were "based entirely on suspicion and nothing else". "You've got Meaghan Vass's DNA, you've got the total denials by the accused repeatedly to the police and here in this court room on her oath that she is in no way responsible," Mr Gunson said. "Yes, lies were told, she admits that, but they were not told through a consciousness of guilt. They were silly. They were silly lies … it doesn't mean that she committed the crime of murder."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: Sue Neill-Fraser will find out tomorrow if she can walk free from prison - here’s what her appeal is about,” by Reporter Loretta Lohberger, published by ABC News on November 29, 2021. (Australian time);
SUB-HEADING: “Hobart woman Susan Neill-Fraser will find out on Tuesday if she will walk free from prison, with the Court of Criminal Appeal set to hand down its decision on her appeal against her conviction for murdering her partner, Bob Chappell.”
PHOTO CAPTION: “ Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted of murdering her partner but has always maintained that she was innocent.”
PHOTO CAPTION: “ The prosecution argued Meaghan Vass's DNA got on the yacht via a secondary transfer."
KEY POINTS:
- The Court of Criminal Appeal will hand down its decision on Tuesday at 9:45am in Susan Neill-Fraser's latest appeal against her murder conviction
-
In 2010, a Supreme Court of Tasmania jury found Neill-Fraser guilty murdering her partner Bob Chappell, on board the couple's yacht -
The court has had to consider whether Neill-Fraser has "fresh and compelling" evidence that casts doubt on the jury's verdict
GIST: “A Supreme Court jury in 2010 found Neill-Fraser guilty of murdering Mr Chappell, 65, on board the couple's yacht, the Four Winds, which was moored off Sandy Bay, on Australia Day in 2009.
Neither Mr Chappell's body nor a murder weapon has ever been found.
Neill-Fraser, now 67, has always argued she was innocent.
What is the appeal all about?:
The appeal rests on questions about how DNA from a then-homeless 15-year-old, Meaghan Vass, came to be on the Four Winds' deck.
During the appeal hearing in March, the court heard that in 2010, Ms Vass told the jury she did not remember ever being on or near the yacht at the time of Mr Chappell's disappearance, and could not remember where she was on the night of January 26, 2009.
The prosecution at trial argued Ms Vass's DNA got onto the deck as a result of secondary transfer — such as from the sole of a shoe.
Evidence from Ms Vass herself was abandoned by Neill-Fraser's lawyers after she made contradictory statements to the court.
But the DNA remains central to the appeal. Neill-Fraser's lawyers are relying on evidence previously given by Victoria Police forensic specialist Maxwell Jones to argue the prosecution was wrong at trial to dismiss the DNA deposit as a red herring.
"There is … a significant possibility that the jury would have delivered a different verdict if the evidence of [Mr] Jones had been before it," barrister Chris Carr SC told the court.
Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates SC told the court the evidence was not fresh nor compelling — which is required for the appeal to succeed — and Mr Jones had not been able to rule out secondary transfer.
He also said the DNA swab was taken three days after Mr Chappell's disappearance, and, according to Mr Jones, the DNA matching Ms Vass's was likely to be a day or two old when it was swabbed.
After the hearing, there were calls to reopen the appeal.
This is not the first time Neill-Fraser has appealed against her conviction. Her 2012 appeal was dismissed.
A Tasmanian law change in 2015 gave convicted people the right to a second or subsequent appeal if they had "fresh and compelling" evidence and could argue that as a result of that evidence not being considered in the original trial, there may have been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
If such an appeal is successful, the court can order a re-trial or acquit. If she is acquitted, she will be able to leave prison.
What happens if the appeal fails?
Neill-Fraser's supporters say they will not give up the fight if the appeal fails.
Her legal options could include applying to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision if it does not go in her favour.
Neill-Fraser could also appeal again to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but she would need fresh and compelling evidence to mount a new appeal.
As things stand now, Neill-Fraser will be eligible for parole in August, but her supporters say she wants to leave prison as an innocent woman.
The 2010 trial
A Supreme Court jury deliberated for more than 18 hours before unanimously finding Neill-Fraser guilty of murder.
Then-director of public prosecutions, Tim Ellis SC, urged the jury to conclude that Neill-Fraser had told numerous lies in the days and months after Mr Chappell's disappearance, and that those lies had been told out of a consciousness of guilt.
Neill-Fraser's lawyer, the late David Gunson SC, told the jury Mr Ellis' arguments were "based entirely on suspicion and nothing else".
"You've got Meaghan Vass's DNA, you've got the total denials by the accused repeatedly to the police and here in this court room on her oath that she is in no way responsible," Mr Gunson said.
"Yes, lies were told, she admits that, but they were not told through a consciousness of guilt. They were silly. They were silly lies … it doesn't mean that she committed the crime of murder."
When sentencing Neill-Fraser in October 2010, then-justice Alan Blow said he was "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Neill-Fraser attacked Mr Chappell on board the yacht, the Four Winds", either in the saloon or the wheelhouse.
In his sentencing remarks, Justice Blow said Mr Chappell probably died on board the yacht, but he could not rule out the possibility that the attack left him deeply unconscious and that drowning was the cause of death.
Justice Blow said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Neill-Fraser:
-
Manoeuvred Mr Chappell's body into the yacht's tender (small boat for going back to shore) -
Attached a 14kg fire extinguisher to his body -
Dumped Mr Chappell's body in the River Derwent some distance away from the Four Winds
Justice Blow said the evidence upon which he based those findings included blood found on the Four Winds, and on a torch on board the yacht, the state of the yacht's ropes and winches on January 27, 2009, the absence of the fire extinguisher and sections of carpet from the vessel's saloon, the finding and scientific examination of the tender, and evidence that Mr Chappell's body was not found in sections of the river searched by police divers.
He said Neill-Fraser also attempted to sink the Four Winds in order to destroy evidence, and that her motive was material gain.
The question the Court of Criminal Appeal — comprising justices Helen Wood, Stephen Estcourt and Robert Pearce — has been concerned with is not whether Neill-Fraser is guilty or innocent, but whether there is fresh and compelling evidence that casts doubt on the original verdict."
The entire story can be read at:
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
