THERE WAS NO BLOOD

NEILL-FRASER APPEAL Dinghy supposedly used to dump body ‘had no evidence’

THERE was no reliable evidence of human blood found in an inflatable dinghy supposedly used to dump the body of Bob Chap- pell in the River Derwent, the Supreme Court has heard.

Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser, 62, is using new laws to mount an appeal against her conviction for killing her partner aboard their yacht moored off Sandy Bay on Australia Day, 2009.

The Supreme Court in Hobart has heard evidence there was no scientifically credible bloodstain evidence to support the finding that Ms Neill-Fraser had hauled Mr Chappell’s body on to the yacht’s deck and into the tender, pictured, before taking it away and dumping it in the river.

THERE was no reliable evidence of human blood found in an inflatable dinghy supposedly used to dump the body of Bob Chappell in the River Derwent, the Supreme Court has heard.

Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser, 62, is using new laws to mount a last-ditch appeal against her conviction for murdering her 65-year-old partner aboard the yacht the Four Winds moored off Sandy Bay on Australia Day 2009.

The Supreme Court in Hobart yesterday heard evi- dence there was no scientifically credible bloodstain evidence to support the finding by now-Chief Justice Alan Blow Ms Neill-Fraser had hauled Mr Chappell’s body onto the yacht’s deck and into the tender before taking it away and dumping it in the river.

Expert witness Mark Edward Reynolds said conclusive testing of the yacht’s tender had failed to turn up evidence of human blood.

This was despite a positive result to the chemical luminol, which glows in response to the presence of blood and other substances. That testing was followed up by a more definitive “Hemastick” swab tests.

“Sixteen swabs from seven different locations ... every result was negative,” Dr Reynolds said.

“In my opinion, it’s not blood, it’s not human blood.”

He said that meant further testing, which revealed the presence of Mr Chappell’s DNA in the dinghy was irrelevant to the prosecution case.

Dr Reynolds agreed nobody had claimed during Ms Neill-Fraser’s trial blood was found in the dinghy.

He was also questioned by Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates, SC, about rub marks on a hatch which could have been caused by the killer winching Mr Chappell’s body out of the saloon area. In

his report, Dr Reynolds pointed out the rub marks did not line up exactly with the position of the rope when it was in a lifting position, but aligned with the route the rope took when it was set up for lowering.

“Is it quite possible that the rub marks were caused by lifting a body using the winch from the bottom to the yacht?” Mr Coates asked.

“I can’t answer that, I don’t know,” Dr Reynolds replied.

And although not an expert in winches, he agreed that Ms Neill-Fraser could possibly have lifted an 81kg body using the main boom sheet winch, which had a lifting ratio of 27:1.

“If she can move 3kg, then she could have done it, but I don’t know,” he said.

He agreed there was nothing in the reports he had prepared for the court that was not available at the time of Ms Neill-Fraser’s first trial in 2010.

“Would you agree there’s nothing in these reports that’s fresh — it all could have been made available at the time of the trail,” Mr Coates asked.

“I guess I would agree,” the witness replied.

The court heard rather than concluding today, evi- dence from further witnesses would be required. Justice Michael Brett set aside further hearing days in June.

Neill-Fraser was convicted by a Supreme Court jury in 2010 and sentenced by the now Chief Justice Blow.

The judge said after concluding her relationship with Mr Chappell was at an end, she carried out a plot she had mentioned to an acquaintance years before to improve her financial position.

In 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected her ap- peal, the High Court declined to hear her case and a coroner’s inquest found she was responsible for Mr Chappell’s death. She is serving a 23-year prison sentence, with a nonparole period of 13 years.

New right-to-appeal legislation allows a convicted person a final right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal if there is “fresh and compelling evidence” and there has been “a substantial miscarriage of justice”.

The hearing continues today.

In my opinion, it’s not blood, it’s not human blood

— MARK REYNOLDS