02 December 2025

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Madam Acting President, I rise to share the new evidence that demonstrates serious shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution that led to Ms Sue Neill-Fraser's murder conviction. I refer not only to the Etter-Selby report, which I tabled last month, but to new evidence found since.

Broadly, that evidence follows two tracks. One is the significance of Ms Meaghan Vass's DNA that was left on the yacht in January 2009 and matched to her in March 2010, which was after Ms Neill-Fraser had been arrested.

The other track is the documentary evidence which shows the failure of police to make proper inquiries about Ms Vass, her associates, her mobile phones, break-ins to or thefts from boats around the time of the murder and any break-in at Cleanlift in Goodwood, to which the yacht was taken before the DNA was found on its deck.

I've raised concerns before about Ms Neill-Fraser's conviction in this place. I gave an adjournment speech in August 2021 when I tabled the first Etter-Selby papers about her case, outlining concerns with the police investigation, the forensics, such as the wrongful use of luminol to claim the presence of Bob's blood in the dinghy, and the possible misleading of the court. I was supported in that initiative by former premier and attorney-general Lara Giddings AO. I must admit I'd been elected in 2009. That was the first adjournment speech I had made 12 years. That's how seriously I took that situation.

Two years ago, I gave another speech in August 2023, highlighting further issues in the case, including concerns about a small blue towel and apparent non-disclosures. Despite all the work done to bring these matters to the attention of the government, there was no action taken. Whatever the reasons for that inaction, the latest independent scientific advances, along with the exposure of further investigative shortcomings, entail that averting one's gaze or asserting full confidence in the process so far will no longer work.

For those reasons, at the end of the speech I will make some specific suggestions as to what needs to happen immediately in the Neill-Fraser case to ensure that Sue gets justice. But that is not all. There are serious questions about the quality and oversight of the police investigation, the independence of Tasmanian Police Forensic Scientists Services, known as FSST, the handling of the disclosure to the courts by both police and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, and the lack of proper management of and support for Ms Meaghan Vass after she made sworn statements to have been on the yacht.

The question could be asked what happened to Meaghan Vass to make her recant those admissions in the witness box in 2021. Those are not questions that will be answered in the adversarial court system. I believe they can only be answered by an independent inquisitorial inquiry set up to identify mistakes and deficiencies and offer pragmatic solutions that will benefit us all in the future.

By the way of background, Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her partner Bob Chappell on their moored yacht in Sandy Bay, Hobart, on Australia Day 2009. She was released on parole in 2022 after 13 years in prison.

This is a case with no body, no weapon and no time or cause of death. Sue has loyal supporters who've been seeking for 15 years to uncover fresh and compelling evidence to overturn conviction. Some of them are here today. Their tenacity and determination against the odds have been extraordinary.

Independent Tasmanian parliamentarians, both state and federal, have obtained valuable information from police and Tasmania's FSST records using our right to information legislation, despite delays, initial refusals, the frequent use of exemptions and their interpretation of public interest. As well as my fellow parliamentarians, I also acknowledge a speech highlighting some of the issues by Senator Jacqui Lambie in the Senate on 28 August 2025.

I note the wider public reaction to the tabled report. Its contents led the Mercury to publish a front-page story titled 'DNA Bombshell' and stating explosive new evidence could clear Neill-Fraser, as well as a two-page feature feature article and a powerful editorial that included these insightful comments: [tbc 9.43]

Critics may argue that this is another attempt to relitigate an exhausted case. But justice is not a matter of convenience or finality. It is a matter of truth. If credible scientific or evidentiary developments cast real doubt on a conviction, those developments must be examined, no matter how much time has passed or how uncomfortable the process may be. Tasmania's justice system prides itself on fairness and transparency. Both will be tested by how authorities respond to this latest evidence. The public, the courts and most importantly, the Chappell and Neill-Fraser families deserve to know whether the science and the truth have changed.

Many here today will recall the changing evidence of Ms Vass, whose DNA was found on the deck of the yacht. In 2010 and again in March 2012 she said she'd never been on the yacht. In 2017, she swore that she was on the yacht but at the leave to appeal hearing later in 2017 she denied being on the yacht and said she had signed the document out of fear. In 2019, Ms Vass again swore on 60 Minutes that she'd been on the yacht with others, but not Sue Neill Fraser on the day of Bob Chappell's disappearance. It was the issue that led Justice Brett to grant leave to appeal in the case. However, Ms Vass recanted those admissions at the 2021 appeal. The only ground of appeal left concerned her DNA, including the central questions of when and how her DNA was deposited on the yacht deck. The argument was that the Vass sample was primary that is left by her was said in the leading judgment to be an overreach. However, this was done without the benefit of knowing the very large amount of DNA involved - I will come back to that point.

By majority, the Appeal Court accepted, because of the evidence before it, that the DNA was left several days after Bob's disappearance at the Cleanlift boatyard.

At the heart of what I'm about to share is the new scientific evidence that supports Ms Meaghan Vass being on the yacht on the day when Bob Chappell disappeared. Ms Etter's efforts did not stop with the tabling of this report. This speech refers to the recent RTI disclosures by police and more relevant peer reviewed scientific publications, that Ms Vass was on the yacht on Australia Day, now has hard evidence to support it, unlike the police explanation at the 2021 appeal that Ms Vass and her associates went on the yacht days later when it was under the police control at Cleanlift.

I address three topics today, they are -

(3) The significance of the Vass DNA on the deck of the yacht;

(4) police failing to investigate the obvious and then their failure to disclose; and

(5) what needs now to be done by the government.

Let's turn now to the significance of the Vass DNA on the deck of the yacht. The Vass DNA is now the critical objective evidence pointing to a murderer other than Sue Neill Fraser. The critical errors with respect to the Vass DNA in the investigation prosecution of Ms Neill Fraser began in March 2010 after her arrest, but months before her trial. It was then that the DNA recovered from the yacht at Cleanlift premises in January 2009 was matched to Ms Meaghan Vass.

At the 2010 trial, the Vass DNA is explained as being secondary transfer, that is it came there from someone else, possibly on the sole of a shoe and possibly via a police officer. That expert notion was nothing more than speculation. No evidence was ever led as to a known person having contact with Ms Vass, somehow requiring something which would produce a very large amount of DNA and then going on to the yacht and somehow transferring that sample to the deck. The investigating police were advised by Mr Carl Grosso[tbc] of FSST in March 2010 as follows:
Given the strong DNA profile that we obtained, I'd suggest that this is indicative of the presence of a relatively large amount of DNA, which is more likely to come from body fluids, blood, saliva, et cetera, than a simple contact or touching event.

That is an early question mark about the secondary transfer claim. It is in an official email in 2010, months before the trial.

By this time, the police and FSST were wedded to their theory that Ms Neill Fraser was the murderer. Ms Vass's simple denial of ever going on to the yacht was convenient, as was an insertion to possibly being in the Goodwood area around the time; it was too convenient to be properly checked.

In 2021, as in 2010, the police and the prosecution were able to make an argument about the timing of deposition, even though it was fundamentally flawed because, as I will show, it both ignored available scientific evidence and published concerns and failed to follow basic lines of investigation.

A little later in this speech, I will spell out the scientific evidence available to FSST staff from 2010, including [inaudible] either not disclosed or not sufficiently researched or understood. The new scientific evidence and the recent significant scientific advances, primarily since 2021 but also earlier, rebut the police and prosecution claims that the Vass DNA was left on the yacht some days after Bob's disappearance and that someone other than Ms Vass left it. The scientific evidence put before the 2021 Appeal Court by the prosecution relating to the likely time of the DNA being left and was accepted by two of the three judges was wrong and incomplete.

The judges also did not have the important information and expert advice as to the implications of the quantity of the DNA involved - that 45 nanograms of DNA present in the 45 micro litre sample.

Justice Wood in 2021 noted that neither Mr Jones nor Ms Grosser define what they meant by a relatively large quantity of DNA. Her Honour stated that it would seem to be a relative descriptor based upon the nature of the DNA profile and the features of it, such as the good strong peak heights and factors such as dilution process. The court did not have the benefit of the actual quantity and expert opinion on the implications of that finding.

One can readily accept that new scientific discoveries can overturn what were previously accepted. This happened in the recent review of the Kathleen Folbigg case in New South Wales. Less acceptable is when available science is not found, or worse, disregarded or ignored or not disclosed, or expert advice is not shared so that the courts are misled.

What we have in the Sue Neill-Fraser case are multiple errors. Forensic scientist Max Jones, who worked at the Victorian Police Forensic Services Department, was a witness for Ms Neill-Fraser at the leave to appeal hearing in 2017. He had written expert reports in April and July 2014, including on the issue of persistence, which were in evidence. Thereafter, in 2020, FSST forensic biologist, Paul Holloway, prepared reports which inexplicably were not put to the Appellate Court.

Both experts Holloway and Jones referred to and relied upon a short 2009 article by Dr Raymond from NSW and other Australian scientists. The abstract for the 2009 article in Forensic Science International Genetics states:

The amount of DNA recovered from the DNA source on the outdoor surfaces declined by approximately half over two weeks to a negligible amount after six weeks. Profiles could not be obtained after two weeks.

However, the short article did not contain the full details of Dr Raymond's PhD thesis, which was submitted mid-2010, the year of the trial. Contradicting his written opinion, Mr Jones gave evidence in October 2017 to the effect that the DNA sample of Meaghan Vass was so fresh that it must have been deposited in the previous one to two days after Bob Chappell's murder.

However, the Raymond thesis reported at page 151 that the decline of the trace DNA appears to follow a linear trend rather than a strong drop-off in the first few days. The linear trend has never been considered in this case. Why not? Why were Jones and Holloway not aware of this important research?

While the Raymond thesis dealt with trace DNA, the thesis experiments were conducted with a large amount of human cells and quantity of some DNA deposited in the experiment was up to 300,000 times greater than the amount left during a hand contact. In any case, both Jones and Holloway chose to rely on this study as being relevant.

Mr Jones's change of opinion at the leave to appeal should have been clarified in re-examination by reference to his written report. That wasn't done. Dr Raymond's PhD results should have been but weren't discussed at any of the 2010 trial, the later appeal, the subsequent application to be allowed to appeal again, and the 2021 appeal.

It doesn't end there. Mr Holloway of FSST wrote two versions of a report in 2020, one in March, another in June. What he wrote about the Raymond article in June 2020 report on the issue of time of deposition is as follows:

The maximum time difference between possible times of deposition in the scenarios considered is only four days. Controlled experiments looking at the persistence of DNA outdoors, such as Raymond et al., 2009 suggests that if enough DNA is deposited, it would be possible to obtain a DNA profile like that after this time.

The Raymond et al., 2009 article is the only study that Holloway refers to in this important section of his June 2020 report. It is not mentioned in his earlier 2020 version. Maybe the failure to tender Mr Holloway's report, or call him as a witness at the 2021 appeal, was a decision made within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).

What would be the reasons for this departure from expected prosecutorial conduct? Prosecutors have a duty of full disclosure to the court, even that which is contrary to the prosecution case. Whatever the reason for the failure to tender the Holloway report and call him to give evidence, it is clear from both the Jones and Holloway reports, made all the stronger by the latest published scientific papers, that Ms Vass's DNA could have been left on the deck of the yacht on Australia Day.

Further support from the Vass DNA being left on Australia Day is the length of time that saliva can last on exposed surfaces. There is a 2022 article from the International Journal of Legal Medicine. This is not mentioned in the November tabled Etter-Selby report, which looked at the persistence of saliva cells and outdoor scenarios on soil, cloth and plastic. In outdoor scenarios the researchers observed a tipping point at an exposure time of three months. This is important, as the Holloway report states it's more likely that the source of the Vass DNA sample was saliva. Grosser also mentioned that possibility in 2010.

The published research papers since 2021 report on an exciting development with two important issues: it's called DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA TPPR); more broadly, the time since deposition (TSD). This includes the length of time that a DNA sample can survive on a metal or steel substrate in the external environment in varying conditions. The Four Winds yacht had a metal deck. The Vass DNA was found on that deck. It was a large and strong sample; it was just not a trace that came from a policeman's shoe.

A 2023 article in Forensic Science International by South Australian scientists examined persistence of touch DNA on commonly encountered substrates, including metal, under different storage conditions. The steel substrate-produced information, short tandem repeat (STR) profiles for the outside condition up to six months.

Emerging science was the key to overturning the convictions of Ms Kathleen Folbigg, wrongly convicted of killing her four children. At the time of her trial and for years thereafter, there was no science to refute the claim that she was a killer; now she is free, her reputation restored. As pointed out by the Australian Academy of Science after the Folby exoneration:

To ensure justice we must ensure a science sensitive legal system. Science sensitive embraces scientific thoroughness and independence and responsiveness by the justice system.

In the Sue Neill-Fraser saga, this means looking at the 2010 trial, the 2017 leave to appeal and the 2021 appeal. Was science used appropriately? Was it reliable? An article in Forensic Science International: Genetics by Victorian scientists, including those working with Mr Jones, the Victoria Police Forensic Service Department in Melbourne at the time, published on 11 September 2017 that is, before the expert evidence of Mr Jones in October 2017 stated that those authorised to report on the weight of DNA evidence are frequently called upon to address questions of DNA TPPR, that's DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery.

However, due to a lack of standardisation, knowledge and training, these questions are often addressed poorly or inadequately, thus potentially adversely impacting justice outcomes. The authors, as a result of their research, advocated that individuals should be specifically authorised to conduct analysis and provide expert opinion in criminal investigations and legal proceedings relating to DNA TPPR. In addition, the authors stated that the depths of knowledge regarding the impact of various DNA TPPR related variables was incomplete but improving, and that the discipline was developing. Using an experiment when the ground truth or actual scenario is known, 29 DNA reporting scientists were tested and asked to provide opinion on DNA TPPR in relation to six DNA profiles, with some generated via direct contact and some via indirect contact. Substantial variation was observed among participants, not only in the assessment of the type of DNA transfer but also its likelihood. In numerous instances key factors known to influence the likelihood of transfer were not considered or assumed irrelevant. Alarmingly, the percent of correct responses by any participant ranged from 11 to 67 per cent, with the average of 42 per cent.

Even to a layperson this does not seem acceptable. This research, including national guidelines on evaluative reporting published by the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) in Melbourne on June 27, including authors from Victoria and Dr Duncan Taylor from South Australia, warrant a revisiting of the expert DNA evidence relied upon in this case; even more so when those concerns were repeated in an article by three of the 2017 authors and two additional experts in 2019 in Forensic Science International: Genetics.

The abstract states that those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. The authors advocated specialised recognition of such expertise, supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation and regular, fit for purpose proficiency testing. Even as recently as June 2025, Dr Duncan Taylor and other experts in the American Journal of Forensic Sciences referred to the evaluation of DNA given activity level propositions (EGALP), and expressed concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded.

I now turn to police failing to investigate the obvious. The second track is that the police asserted that Meaghan Vass or associates had the opportunity, in the days after Bob Chappell's disappearance, to board the yacht when it was at the Cleanlift boatyard in Goodwood. The police and prosecution assertion of an opportunity for outsiders to go on board was never supported by evidence, but it was accepted. Thanks to the material uncovered in response to the RTI request lodged by members of our parliament and police records, it is clear there was no evidence the police could use to support their claim.

Detailed chronologies in the report outline the context and sequencing of key events. There were no reported break-ins during the relevant time. There was a very narrow window of opportunity between midday 28 January 2009 and 1:40 a.m. on 30 January 2009. When the undisclosed and more recent science and the quality and quantity of DNA in the Meaghan Vass sample is coupled with the demonstration of the speculative nature of the police claim that Ms Vass or her associates were on the yacht in the days after Australia Day 2009, there is this conclusion: it is more probable than not that Ms Vass was on the yacht on Australia Day.

That is not all that this report exposes. The RTI disclosed materials, I'm sad to say, reveal basic flaws and oversights in both the police investigation and the forensic work. Let me share some of those with you. Despite their duty to do so, the police failed to disclose to the court, the prosecution and the defence, material supportive of Ms Neill Fraser including:

(6) that the police searched for the yacht's missing fire extinguisher in February 2009 in the bedroom of a person suspected of stealing from boats, but strangely never mentioned that search or why they conducted it. The search is corroborated by a sworn statement by a person present at the time. That missing fire extinguisher was an early media focus and much wholly speculative use was made of it at its trial;

(7) Meaghan Vass had several mobile phone numbers, but the police examined only one of them. This entailed that neither the prosecution nor the defence could be aware that she had more than one mobile; and

(8) the police failure to adequately investigate the actions, relevant histories and whereabouts of Meaghan Vass's known and suspected associates, particularly those referred to by the officer in charge, Inspector Peter Rau[tbc], who were known to steal from boats, and those she may have stayed with on and around Australia Day and several days following.

The police investigations failed to include quite basic inquiries regarding Ms Meaghan Vass's associates, and this is gobsmacking. No-one outside police has appreciated until now that there were two 'Sams' of interest, not one as previously thought. The police records indicate that no inquiries were made to one of them; inquiries of the other in 2017 were too little, too late. Either or both Sams may have found information about where Ms Vass went with whom and went on the afternoon and evening of Australia Day 2009 and the days following. Those persons whose identities in the interests of justice are suppressed in the tabled report should have been asked by police to account for their movements and provide any relevant information in the period up to the 2010 trial. Those accounts should have then been checked.

Let me turn to some additional new matters that cause concern in the handling of scientific evidence, in this case, especially with the respect to an apparent lack of accountability and transparency. A small blue towel was found on the deck of the yacht near the Meaghan Vass DNA. The item, which we know still exists, was not mentioned in the 2009 major forensic biology report, an omission still not explained despite RTI and correspondence by Robert Richter KC to the DPP Commissioner of Police and the Director of FSST. We know it was in the DNA lab in early February 2009, from disclosed records. Despite numerous requests in recent years, police are still refusing to allow an independent expert to review relevant FSST records or organise independent testing of that towel - why?

I note in passing that the government earlier this year took the commendable step in the Eden Westbrook case of legislating to ensure that autopsy photos could be obtained by the senior next of kin from the Coroners Office for independent scientific examination. Obviously, the police, too, should be required to be open and transparent with forensic evidence.

The court and Ms Neill Fraser's lawyers were not told about a referral by FSST on activity level reporting case to an internationally respected DNA expert, Dr Duncan Taylor, at Forensic Science South Australia, 2019. Activity level reporting refers to the how and when of DNA deposition transfer, and not the who - it goes to the issue at the heart of this case. Dr Taylor holds PhDs in molecular biology and statistics. This approach to Dr Taylor was just after leave for a further appeal was granted and well before the appeal hearing. This action was only discovered this year in June, by way of a delayed external review disclosure under RTI to member Meg Webb.

A further RTI application was made on 18 September 2025 for all emails between FSST and Forensic Science South Australia personnel in relation to the DNA, in this case between May 2019 and the present. A response dated 13 November 2025, was received on 24 November 2025. An extension has been negotiated in mid November to [Inaudible 10.09.11] provide the statement of reasons. Three pages of redacted information were disclosed, and various exemptions were applied to delete the bulk of a response by Dr Taylor to FSST on 7 June 2019. The significant redactions, around half a page, occur after a statement by Dr Taylor that there are a couple of ways that you could look at this issue. Dr Taylor then went on to say: [tbc 10.09]

So, all in all, I don't think I'm going to be able to help in this instance.

An email from FSST Biology Manager Ms Pam Scott, for Forensic Science South Australia on 30 May 2019, stated: [tbc 10.09.56]

That the contact was being made at the request of DPP discusses the possibility of Dr Taylor doing an activity level reporting analysis on the Neill Fraser case. It further stated there was a high quality of DNA in the sample and a good DNA profile was obtained. Exemptions are then applied to the communication. No doubt if it was supportive of the prosecution case, the South Australian advice would have been disclosed. There was no mention of this contact or communication, let alone its contents in either the Holloway Reports of 2020 or the FSST [inaudible] case notes released under a 152-page supplementary RTI internal review to member Meg Webb. There are no entries for the period between 4 April and 5 September 2019.

The question should be asked, will the government, in the interests of justice and in accordance with ongoing disclosure requirements, immediately release the full emails between the FSST and Dr Duncan Taylor from Forensic Science in South Australia?

Now I will quickly outline what needs to be done by the government. The contents of the report tabled in November, supplemented by the additional material touching as they do upon important, complex and emerging science, the apparent withholding of relevant science at the 2021 appeal, fundamental omissions from the police investigations and non-disclosures, and concerns about the reliability of expert evidence in DNA TPPR all combined to make a strong argument that Sue Neill-Fraser deserves yet another opportunity to appeal.

Such opportunity should be facilitated and not ignored and not slowed down by this government. Fighting a case like this is a David and Goliath battle. The resources of the state are overwhelming in comparison. It follows that the Attorney-General should provide special funding to Legal Aid to ensure the retention of experienced and independent criminal appellate lawyers who can and will act swiftly on Sue's behalf.

In the normal course, the Attorney-General could direct our DPP to take the appropriate action to facilitate leave to appeal and swiftly bring the matter before the appellate court. However, given the contents of both the latest information and the 2021 Etter-Selby papers, especially as those touched upon non-disclosure of material to Ms Neill-Fraser's lawyers and the failure to call Mr Holloway, [inaudible 10.12.38] his report, it would be more appropriate for the Attorney-General to brief outside counsel.

I note, too, that conditions of Ms Neill-Fraser's parole prevent her from communicating directly or indirectly to third parties to assert claims of innocence or wrongful conviction. Such a restriction, in the light of this report, will be seen by right-thinking people to be an unreasonable fetter. I hope the Attorney-General will take immediate steps to have that condition removed. Without that restriction, Ms Neill-Fraser might have joined her supporters in the gallery today.

Earlier I mentioned that the government needed to pursue two responses. The first and most urgent is facilitating a further leave to appeal by Ms Neill-Fraser. The second is an appropriately resourced and empowered inquisitorial inquiry to get the bottom of what, on the face of it, seems to be too many problems with the investigation, the forensics, the prosecution and the appeals. Appropriate independent expert opinion is needed in that regard.

The history of the Sue Neill-Fraser matter shows that we in Tasmania need to take steps to justify community confidence and trust in our criminal justice system.

How would any one of us feel if today we were not talking about Sue Neill-Fraser, but about a member of our family or a dear friend? We must, each and every one of us, press for immediate action to give Sue Neill-Fraser, her family and the Chappell family a decision based on sound evidence. We must also press for action to improve standards within our criminal justice system so there is justice for all. I ask that the report and executive summary be considered and noted.