In 2010, Susan Neill-Fraser was convicted of murder following the mysterious disappearance of her partner from their yacht on Australia Day. The case, highly publicised and deeply controversial, divided the Hobart community, leading to a 26-year sentence, later reduced to 23 on appeal. With no body, murder weapon, eyewitnesses, confession, clear motive, or forensic evidence to support the conviction, the case remains shrouded in uncertainty. However, unexplained DNA from a homeless girl emerged as a crucial link to the scene. Despite Neill-Fraser’s release on parole in October 2022, her conviction still stands.

For 15 years, Neill-Fraser’s supporters have worked tirelessly to expose the flaws in her trial, describing her as a peaceful and caring individual with no reason to harm Bob Chappell, her partner of 18 years. Despite these efforts, her case endures as one of the most polarising legal matters in the country. Convicted on circumstantial evidence, the case is marked by a series of bizarre occurrences, forensic discrepancies, the unreliable testimony of a witness, the emergence of alternative suspects, and a flawed investigative process. Crucial evidence that could have raised reasonable doubt was either misrepresented or omitted entirely.

The prosecution alleged that Neill-Fraser attacked Chappell on the Four Winds sometime between 5:00–9:00 p.m. or around midnight, either killing him or rendering him deeply unconscious. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m., she was said to have sabotaged the yacht by opening a seacock and cutting a pipe in an attempt to flood and sink the vessel. Detectives speculated that she single-handedly hauled Chappell’s body onto the deck using a winch, maneuvered it into their small inflatable dinghy, and disposed of it in deep water – all without capsizing the tender. However, this theory is physically implausible, as medical records confirm Neill-Fraser had a slipped disc and could not lift heavy objects. Additionally, the open valve on the yacht was cited as proof that only someone with ‘intimate knowledge’ of the boat could have tampered with it, yet Chappell had recently left the valve exposed while performing maintenance.

The prosecution’s claim that Chappell’s blood was found throughout the boat and dinghy relied solely on preliminary screening tests, which should be inadmissible without follow-up confirmatory tests. A forensic scientist claimed that she could identify blood stains according to the duration and intensity of the glow and sparkle from the luminol which she used. This was widely recognised at that time as ‘junk science.’ A latex glove obtained on board, initially believed to indicate a crime scene cleanup, was later identified through DNA testing as belonging to Chappell’s son. The missing fire extinguisher, allegedly used to weigh down Chappell’s body, was first reported as missing by Neill-Fraser herself – an unexpected action for someone attempting to conceal evidence.

Beyond forensic inconsistencies, key witness testimony further undermines the prosecution’s case. A witness who claimed to have seen Neill-Fraser and Chappell arguing later admitted to mistaking Neill-Fraser for Chappell’s sister – a false identification never disclosed to the jury. Another key witness who testified against Neill-Fraser had a history of making false and damaging claims about her, raising serious doubts about their credibility.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the case is emergence of alternative suspects and overlooked evidence. DNA from a then 15-year-old homeless girl was found aboard the yacht, yet authorities failed to investigate her possible involvement – a revelation that has become central to legal discussions. Witnesses also reported seeing a large, dark grey dinghy near the yacht at a critical time, yet this evidence was ignored.

The prosecution’s claimed motive was similarly misrepresented. It was suggested that Neill-Fraser’s relationship with Chappell was deteriorating, yet friends and family who could have testified to the strength of their relationship were never called to the stand. Financially independent, Neill-Fraser had no reason to harm Chappell, and they were in the process of planning a sailing trip together. Discrepancies in Neill-Fraser’s statements, which were used to portray her as deceptive, were largely the result of confusion, shock, and flawed police questioning. Her initial claim to be home the night of Chappell’s disappearance, later corrected to reflect her retrieval of the family car from Marieville Esplanade, was not an attempt to mislead but rather an effort to protect a vulnerable family member struggling with mental health issues.

The prosecutor told the jury that, based on the injuries Chappel ‘would have had,’ he must have been attacked by a friend, not a stranger. However, there was no evidence of any injuries – Chappel had simply disappeared. He also argued that the disposal of the body indicated the killer was a friend, questioning why a stranger would bother with such an effort.

The persistent uncertainty surrounding Neill-Fraser’s case raises serious concerns regarding the validity of her conviction. With key evidence still unaccounted for and numerous unanswered questions, doubts continue to cast a shadow over her life. Given these issues, the flawed forensic evidence and improper prosecutorial submissions to the jury provide ample grounds to contest the guilty verdict, as they fundamentally undermine the fairness of her trial.