Truth elusive in Sue Neill-Fraser case that twists and turns

The stakes are high: Beyond Neill-Fraser’s guilt or innocence, there is the wider question of confidence in the state’s police and broader justice system, a question allowed to linger for years. READ David Killick’s analysis on this week’s appeal >>

MORE than a decade since Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction for murder, certainties in the case remain hard to find.

Bob Chappell is dead, the victim of foul play. His partner Sue Neill-Fraser, serving a sentence for murder, protests her innocence to this day.

Her long-awaited appeal began on Monday. One of its central pillars teetered and fell on Tuesday.

At the outset, Meaghan Vass claimed she and three others boarded the yacht Four Winds on Australia Day 2009 and Bob Chappell was attacked during a robbery attempt gone awry.

For the first time under oath, Ms Vass named those with her on the night and recounted a fight between one of the males and Mr Chappell.

On Tuesday, she recanted the lot. None of it was true, she said. She had been pressured to say what she said, the court heard.

Both days were difficult viewing. Ms Vass was clearly acutely distressed during her time in the witness box, increasingly so as her evidence unravelled.

In the end, it was decided that nothing she said could be relied upon.

Criminal trials hinge on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judges sometimes put it another way when explaining the notion to juries: is there a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence?

On Monday, that appeared a strong possibility: a compelling alternative explanation for Mr Chappell’s death.

Sarah Bowles and her mum Susan Neill-Fraser at Sarah's wedding in November 2007.

A photo of Bob on his yacht taken a few days before he disappeared.

By lunchtime Tuesday, the case for Sue Neill-Fraser’s innocence was much diminished.

This is a unique appeal, made possible by a determined campaign, strong lobbying and new laws.

Section 402A of the Criminal Code act allows: “a convicted person may apply to a single judge for leave to lodge a second or subsequent appeal against the conviction on the ground that there is fresh and compelling evidence.”

Critical to Neill-Fraser’s case are the words “fresh and compelling”.

The appellant’s legal team is one of the best that could be assembled in the nation.

They have a big job ahead over the balance of the week and without Meaghan Vass’ evidence, it is even harder.

The stakes are high: Beyond Neill-Fraser’s guilt or innocence, there is the wider question of confidence in the state’s police and broader justice system, a question allowed to linger for years.

This case has been considered by a jury, appeals courts, the High Court, a coroner and now this final appeal.

There have been books and documentaries and internet commentary.

Every possible piece of evidence has been pondered and sifted.

The panel of judges on this case also has a hard job, but it is one the court has pursued patiently and with diligence.

Their decision, when it comes, must be the final word.