Bob Chappell Murder - Shadow of Doubt

[BFew]

Hobart woman Susan Neill-Fraser's appeal against her murder of Bob Chappell conviction has been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal this morning.
2 to 1 against a retrial.

Susan Neill-Fraser loses appeal against murder conviction — with one justice dissenting

Hobart woman Susan Neill-Fraser's appeal against her murder conviction has been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal — with one justice dissenting and saying he would have ordered a retrial.

www.abc.net.au

'Two of the three Justices rejected the appeal, with one returning a dissenting judgement.

"After careful consideration of this appeal I have reached the conclusion that the evidence relied upon by the appellant is not fresh, is not compelling," Justice Helen Wood said.

Justice Robert Pearce said he would also dismiss the appeal.

Justice Stephen Estcourt wrote a dissenting judgement, saying he would have allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial.'

 

[fazacs1]

Susan Neill Fraser has lost her high court bid to appeal the murder conviction of Bob Chappell and rightly so IMO, after reading the whole court case, I believe she is where she belongs. I know many people have probably only watched the Tv shows on this case, which is one sided towards SNF, but if you ever have the time to read the whole trial you would think differentl.

 

[SouthernPie]

Have a listen to the podcast "Who Killed Bob" available in any podcast app or just search for it on Google. It's a fascinating series.
To my mind, this demonstrates that SNF being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" was a complete travesty of justice.
I hope she gets and takes parole and she and her family continue agitating to clear her name in any way they can.

 

[fazacs1]

Have a listen to the podcast "Who Killed Bob" available in any podcast app or just search for it on Google. It's a fascinating series.
To my mind, this demonstrates that SNF being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" was a complete travesty of justice.
I hope she gets and takes parole and she and her family continue agitating to clear her name in any way they can.

If you read the whole court transcript, and yes it is long, you will understand why she was found guilty. As I previously mentioned, if you only watched and listened to one sided story, you would think she is innocent. She knew her way around that boat, she helped sail it down from Queensland, she knew how to use a tender, she left Bob out on the boat and brought the tender to shore. She had also asked the men where the bilge plugs were on that trip down from Qld, when Bob had to be hospitalised in Sydney SNF continued on the trip to Hobart. SNF had always wanted to have a boat moored off the Sandy Bay Yacht Club and Bob was over it as it had been nothing but a money pit from the minute they had purchased it. IMO she is where she is because she was found guilty, what I have just mentioned is only the tip of the iceberg in the trial.

 

[craigos]

If you read the whole court transcript, and yes it is long, you will understand why she was found guilty. As I previously mentioned, if you only watched and listened to one sided story, you would think she is innocent. She knew her way around that boat, she helped sail it down from Queensland, she knew how to use a tender, she left Bob out on the boat and brought the tender to shore. She had also asked the men where the bilge plugs were on that trip down from Qld, when Bob had to be hospitalised in Sydney SNF continued on the trip to Hobart. SNF had always wanted to have a boat moored off the Sandy Bay Yacht Club and Bob was over it as it had been nothing but a money pit from the minute they had purchased it. IMO she is where she is because she was found guilty, what I have just mentioned is only the tip of the iceberg in the trial.

Listening to the podcast and the version of events they have is only Bob knew about the inner workings of the boat (specifically the plumbing - which the marine plumber spoke about). Do you have the snippet of where this info was presented different?

Have a listen to the podcast "Who Killed Bob" available in any podcast app or just search for it on Google. It's a fascinating series.
To my mind, this demonstrates that SNF being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" was a complete travesty of justice.
I hope she gets and takes parole and she and her family continue agitating to clear her name in any way they can.

Seems a pretty thin case by all things, the fact she got so long with no real key evidence is surprising. I reckon if she'd have had a half decent lawyer from day one she'd probably be walking the streets of Hobart for at least the last decade.

The DPP saying he died from being hit with a wrench is wild when they have no body or no murder weapon.

 

[fazacs1]

Listening to the podcast and the version of events they have is only Bob knew about the inner workings of the boat (specifically the plumbing - which the marine plumber spoke about). Do you have the snippet of where this info was presented different?

Seems a pretty thin case by all things, the fact she got so long with no real key evidence is surprising. I reckon if she'd have had a half decent lawyer from day one she'd probably be walking the streets of Hobart for at least the last decade.

The DPP saying he died from being hit with a wrench is wild when they have no body or no murder weapon.

Hi Craigos, it is in the actual trial transcript, so not a podcast, hence why it is a long read, but at least you can read about the whole case.

 

[SouthernPie]

Seems a pretty thin case by all things, the fact she got so long with no real key evidence is surprising. I reckon if she'd have had a half decent lawyer from day one she'd probably be walking the streets of Hobart for at least the last decade.

The DPP saying he died from being hit with a wrench is wild when they have no body or no murder weweapon.

It was just extraordinary the amount of heresay that was presented to the jury as if it was factual evidence. The defence was extremely negligent in allowing that to occur.
They also did not question the dodgy forensics involving the luminol in the dinghy.
They did not vigorously challenge the character and motive of the ex-acquaintance (who conveniently testified that SNF told him she would sink the boat with Bob on it and who negotiated a deal with police to have his own current charges reduced in return).
They did not challenge the prosecution notion that the DNA deposited by Megan Voss on the Four Winds got there by secondary transfer. This DBA evidence was dismissed as a "red herring", yet credible experts have since said it was extremely unlikely that it got there by secondary transfer.
In short, SNF was let down terribly by an incompetent defence.

The documentary series Undercurrent is currently being broadcast again. It presents an entirely different and credible theory as to what happened to Bob and it doesn't involve SNF.

The police were totally blinkered in pursuing SNF to the exclusion of anyone else, including the violent criminal whose yacht was moored next to the Four Winds and was dobbed into police by his own "mate". Oddly, this bloke and his yacht had disappeared by the next morning!!!!

It just blows me away that SNF has not been granted a re-trial at the very least.

 

[Cold Sober]

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck it's a ****ing duck.
Disney changes a ducks appearance to suit, just like podcasts.
YOU CAN'T CHANGE EVIDENCE

 

[SouthernPie]

Evidence??? What evidence could possibly have proven she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

I'm not saying she is either innocent or guilty - no-one knows that except SNF herself. However, there was no conclusive evidence presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was on board the yacht that night, killed Bob and sabotaged the boat. None whatsoever. It was all conjecture.

Yes, she told a deliberate lie about not leaving the house that night, but there were understandable reasons for that. Stop press - telling a lie is actually not evidence of committing murder!! It's suspicious behaviour, sure, but it is not unquestionable, concrete evidence.

The information presented to the jury was all circumstantial at best and it was never made clear to them what comprises "beyond reasonable doubt". Plus, the jury was not presented with all the evidence anyway.

 

[fazacs1]

Evidence??? What evidence could possibly have proven she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

I'm not saying she is either innocent or guilty - no-one knows that except SNF herself. However, there was no conclusive evidence presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was on board the yacht that night, killed Bob and sabotaged the boat. None whatsoever. It was all conjecture.

Yes, she told a deliberate lie about not leaving the house that night, but there were understandable reasons for that. Stop press - telling a lie is actually not evidence of committing murder!! It's suspicious behaviour, sure, but it is not unquestionable, concrete evidence.

The information presented to the jury was all circumstantial at best and it was never made clear to them what comprises "beyond reasonable doubt". Plus, the jury was not presented with all the evidence anyway.

What was the understandable reason for lying about not leaving the house that night and parking the car away from the house, unless you didn’t want neighbours knowing when you left , strange thing to do IMO.

 

[SouthernPie]

The above is covered on this website

Miscarriage of Justice in Tasmania | Justice for Sue Neill-Fraser

neill-fraser-support-group.org.au

Check out What the Jury Wasn't Told.

 

[SouthernPie]

 

[SouthernPie]

FACTS - savesue

Why was Sue Neill-Fraser convicted of murder? TV series, Undercurrent Channel 7 and books examine the case. Eve Ash and Colin McLaren expose the truth.

www.savesue.com

 

[Butters and Pepper]

I've watched a couple of the Undercurrent episodes.

I'd never actually heard of this case before.

Really don't know what to think of some of the discussion points in this series, seems to be a bit of doubt about her guilt, but as has been mentioned, these shows often only tell one side of the story.

 

[utility]

The above is covered on this website

Miscarriage of Justice in Tasmania | Justice for Sue Neill-Fraser

neill-fraser-support-group.org.au

Check out What the Jury Wasn't Told.

If procedural unfairness was so clear cut then it wouldn't take much for a bleeding heart virtue-signalling lawyer to commence proceedings to appeal the verdict.

Either all lawyers are full of themselves or this is not so clear cut. I'm convinced Martin Bryant could get off due to lack of procedural fairness. Anybody stepping up for his representation?

Tassie is so Tassie. Lots of skeletons in the closet.

 

[BFew]

Parole granted.
Out within weeks.

Convicted murderer Susan Neill-Fraser granted parole after 13 years

Convicted murderer Susan Neill-Fraser is to be freed after a parole board granted her bid for release from prison.

www.abc.net.au

 

[craigos]

Pretty bizarre if I am honest. Doesn't make a lot of sense considering she hasn't shown any remorse/admitted guilt.

 

[BFew]

Pretty bizarre if I am honest. Doesn't make a lot of sense considering she hasn't shown any remorse/admitted guilt.

Maybe an indication that some in the Justice System think that she is, or is likely innocent of the crimes she was charged with, and/or that there was a miscarriage of Justice for her.

 

[FrankGrimes]

Pretty bizarre if I am honest. Doesn't make a lot of sense considering she hasn't shown any remorse/admitted guilt.

Is strange, changed her tune it seems,
Article states she won’t apply for parole, and only leave prison as an innocent person.,

 

[CD Xbow]

Pretty bizarre if I am honest. Doesn't make a lot of sense considering she hasn't shown any remorse/admitted guilt.

Perhaps she didn't do it!
No body, no direct evidence, pretty tough to be found guilty in the first place.
Victim was on a boat, which presents ample opportunity for him to have fallen in and drowned, ie misadventure.
Absolute rubbish evidence presented about transfer of DNA from Vass, I don't know how that was allowed in court. The most likely reason for DNA from Vass to be on the boat, is because Vass was on the boat.
Then there is the presence of Vass herself and her variable story.

This was a miscarriage of justice.

 

[BFew]

Massive miscarriage of Justice as far as I can see in this 100% circumstantial case prosecution and conviction.

Hope she or her family eventually gets massive compensation for this.

 

[BFew]

Is strange, changed her tune it seems,
Article states she won’t apply for parole, and only leave prison as an innocent person.,

Probably far easier to fight for Justice, and mobilise support for this on the outside, than the inside.

Not easy to get a Four Corners, Australian Story, 60 minutes, or ACA interview of you until you outside of jail!

 

[FrankGrimes]

Massive miscarriage of Justice as far as I can see in this 100% circumstantial case prosecution and conviction.

Hope she or her family eventually gets massive compensation for this.

Don’t think she will, hasn’t the case gone to the high court and was thrown out?
Definitely enough reasonable doubt imo.. but her story wasn’t exactly squeaky clean also, lots of lies told

 

[CD Xbow]

Don’t think she will, hasn’t the case gone to the high court and was thrown out?
Definitely enough reasonable doubt imo.. but her story wasn’t exactly squeaky clean also, lots of lies told

Memory is a tricky thing, and accurate recall after being traumatized is notoriously poor. It may not be deliberate lies. She gave 8 hours of interviews to the police without a lawyer, not something the guilty usually do. You shouldn't be found guilty of murder simply because you may have lied or remembered incorrectly.

I think the judge in the original case bears a lot of blame for allowing so much hearsay evidence. The defense did a very poor job in many instances eg not destroying the prosecutors claims about the Vass DNA, allowing the (incorrect) impression the dinghy was full of blood and other things. The trial only lasted 3 weeks, that's quick for any murder trial, especially one without a shred of evidence.

If you accept other folks had been on the boat, which the Vass DNA proved conclusively, then the whole case becomes increasingly unlikely. Remember there is no body, no evidence of foul play and no witnesses (except perhaps Vass).

This was Tasmanian version of the Lindy Chambelain/Azaria case.

 

[SouthernPie]

^ I wouldn't say there were "lots of lies" told, at least not by SNF.

There were two errors she made. One was saying she was at Bunnings in the afternoon preceding Bob's disappearance and she wasn't. If one goes to a particular store nearly every second day and is in a state of severe shock and anxiety, it would be quite conceivable to get your days mixed up. Plus, many innocent people can't quickly recall what they did yesterday!!!

The second error was saying the jacket left on the fence was not hers, while it actually was. If you're an outdoor person who has a whole range of jackets, you don't necessarily have an instant recognition of each one as belonging to you. Plus, why that jacket implicated her for the murder is very hard to understand. It was found in full view in a public place. Wouldn't a person carefully dispose of it, if it was worn while committing a murder? In addition, there was a long dark hair found on the jacket which was not hers, but never forensically identified.

The outright lie which condemned her in most people's eyes was initally omitting to tell the police she went down to the foreshore in the middle of the night. This is understandable given the family dynamics. When she was first asked how she spent the night in question, she said she never left the house. This was because the police asked this question in front of Bob's son Tim (very poor police work actually). There was a history of tension and angst within the family concerning the mental illness of Tim's sister.
SNF didn't want to explain in front of Tim that she had received an outright weird phone call that night about this sister's concerns about Bob's welfare, thereby risking his ire and anger in front of the police. Quite understandable - I'm sure many families would have internal issues and friction they would rather not stir up in front of police if at all possible.
As it transpired, SNF acted upon this weird phone call and went down to the foreshore to check on the yacht and Bob. This action basically resulted in a guilty verdict and 13 years in jail.