Table of Contents

<SUBMISSION - MR GUNSON SC:...............................................5

<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: ............................................... 11

<IN REPLY - MR GUNSON SC: .................................................. 18

<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: .......................................... 20

<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: ............................................... 22

<RULING - HIS HONOUR: ......................................................... 24

<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: ........................................... 25

<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: ............................................... 26

<RULING - HIS HONOUR: ......................................................... 28

<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: ........................................... 29

<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: ............................................... 30

<RULING - HIS HONOUR: ......................................................... 32

<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: .......................................... 33

<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS Q .................................................. 38

<IN REPLY - MR GUNSON SC: .................................................. 41

<RULING - HIS HONOUR: ......................................................... 42

<RULING - HIS HONOUR .......................................................... 43

<OPENING - MR ELLIS SC: ....................................................... 50

<OPENING - MR GUNSON SC: .................................................. 74

Exhibit List

#MFI - A - LIST OF EVIDENTIARY ISSUES ............................... 2

#MFI - B - LIST OF CROWN WITNESSES................................... 2



.............................................. 56


HIS HONOUR: While I'm having papers marked I've received a - or my associate has received a list of the evidentiary issues from the solicitors for the accused, I'll ask that that list of evidentiary issues be marked for identification.


HIS HONOUR: And also my associate's received a list of Crown witnesses that I'd like to have marked for identification.


HIS HONOUR: Now the only other housekeeping matter that it occurs to me to mention before we get underway is that I've made arrangements to be at various places on the afternoon of Friday, the th October and it would certainly suit me if we didn't sit beyond eleven thirty on that day. There's a conference of judges and magistrates starting in Hobart that afternoon with over ninety of them coming from interstate and I'm involved in it, so if - unless the trial's at a stage where I really need to sit that full day I'd prefer not to sit after eleven thirty that day. I mention that at this stage in case it creates any difficulties. Now is there anything else we need to discuss before I invite argument as to the evidentiary matters.

MR GUNSON SC: Just one I suppose formal housekeeping matter -


MR GUNSON SC: Mr Ellis and I agree that there ought to be a view.


MR GUNSON SC: I have prepared and provided to the Crown the accused's list of places for the jury view. My friend has the list. The only question, I suppose, is when is it practical to do that?

HIS HONOUR: Is - is everything on this list able to be viewed from the land?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, no one needs to go to sea, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Right. Well can I leave it to counsel to discuss when the view should take place?


MR ELLIS SC: We're thinking at nine thirty tomorrow would be a good time to start, and I would have thought the jury will be back by ten thirty, if that took place, it would be a convenient time; I imagine opening addresses, if we're talking in the plural, we'd be finished by then.

HIS HONOUR: Well that suits me if it suits counsel?

MR GUNSON SC: Absolutely, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well the accused's list of places for a jury view can be marked for identification.


HIS HONOUR: All right. And are counsel agreed that I should determine all of the objections on this list at this point - at this stage?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, well I think I should deal with them - I'm inclined to deal with the - the seven matters one at a time. So Mr Gunson, I invite your submissions as to issue number one?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, thank you, your Honour. Before I do that though, your Honour, I'm not sure whether any members of the press are still here, but given the nature of the material I have to address in the first statement, and your Honour, I don't need to go into it, but it would be highly undesirable if any of that material was to find its way into the press if your Honour was to exclude the material, and I just wanted your Honour to make a direction so that any members of the press who are here do not report anything about this process now.

HIS HONOUR: I don't know that a direction is appropriate, but the simple fact is that if evidence is discussed and I then decide not to admit it and there's publicity about it in the media, on the internet or anywhere, we might have to abort this trial, delay it and start again another time.

MR GUNSON SC: Well that's what my concern is about.


HIS HONOUR: So if any member of the press is thinking of reporting anything that's discussed in the absence of the jury it might be an excellent idea not to.


<SUBMISSION - MR GUNSON SC: That's a very good idea, your Honour. The first evidence that I wish to address with your Honour is the statement of Phillip Paul Thomas Triffett, which your Honour will find at - well page 21 through to page 38 of volume 1.


MR GUNSON SC: Has your Honour had the opportunity to read that -


MR GUNSON SC: It's unnecessary for me probably to take your Honour through it but merely submit it was detail but your Honour will appreciate from having read it that there are two distinct major issues arising from that evidence. The first is the evidence that would be sought to be led by the prosecution relating to an approach by the accused towards Mr Triffett to kill her brother Patrick, and in this regard I refer to paragraph 24 where she said this - On an occasion after that Maria and I were at Sue's house at 7 Allison Street and Sue said she wanted to put Patrick overboard to get him out of the inheritance picture. Maria and I passed it off as a joke and Sue didn't go into any particular detail. Now immediately before that on the previous page you'll find a reference to the inheritance issue where Mr Triffett would want to say - Some time after that Sue was having some sort of feud with her mother, Helen Fraser - Leaving aside for one moment that there is no evidentiary basis for that in the sense that he doesn't say, "She told me that", or "I learned it from another source", put that to one side - She started talking to Maria and I about inheritance and her concerns over missing out on her share and her brother Patrick Fraser was going to inherit everything. She said that their mother was well off. I had met Patrick and Helen in the past but never had much to do with Helen. I recall Sue discussing with Maria some type of dealings with Helen where she wanted Helen to sign some property over to her.

Now she then - he then goes on to advance this discussion about Patrick and says - said in paragraph - page 24:


The reason I mention that is that at some stage after that Sue and I went back down to the yacht at Electrona to put injectors into the engine. The yacht was on the mooring and I was working on the injectors. No one else was present. Sue then started talking about Patrick again and how she wanted to get rid of him. I realised then that she was actually serious about it. Sue told me she wanted me to go out onto the yacht with her and Patrick - I'm sorry - - with Patrick out to deep water, as she called it. I was then to push Patrick overboard after weighing him down with a toolbox and things off the yacht and then sink the yacht closer to shore near the marina while Sue rode back to shore. The next paragraph he says: I know she was serious because she actually showed me a pipe, a white hose type of thing, on the bilge pump that she said would sink the boat if I pulled the hose off and put another pipe on that, that I was to place over the side to suck water in. So first of all we have an allegation by this witness that the accused wanted to do away with her brother, as no doubt the Crown would say, in not dissimilar circumstances to which they allege occurred in respect of the present matter. We say to your Honour that the evidence is irrelevant, it relates to an entirely different person other than the accused. The events in question occurred at least eleven years ago, if not before that, and your Honour will say, 'Well how do I know that?' because in the committal proceedings - I'm sorry, the preliminary proceedings Mr Triffett gave evidence that the next event involving Mr Chappell occurred in - at Christmas 1996, and this event involving Patrick occurred some time before that. Now I move on to the evidence about the previous alleged involvement of Mr Triffett to - or trying to secure Mr Triffett to assist in the demise of Mr Chappell - your Honour will find that at the bottom of page 24, and I read it:


Some time ago - some time later I went to the house at Allison Street, Hobart to see if my partner, Maria, was there. At that time Sue's daughter was still living at home but Sue was the only person home. She said she hadn't seen Maria. Sue made me a cup of tea and we were talking in the living room. Sue started telling about how stingy Bob was and how she was worried about Bob's drinking while the girls were still living at home. She reckoned that Bob was waking up in the night and running around the house with knives looking for intruders. She said that Bob believed that someone had been coming in and out of the house during the night. She didn't really elaborate further on that. I remember clearly Sue said then said to me, "Bob's got to go". Which is open to any number of interpretations, I suppose, but then it's alleged she said: What we talked about with Patrick is what's got to happen to Bob. She said she wanted Bob wrapped up in chicken wire. I was shocked and asked her what she meant and she said she wanted me to take Bob out on the yacht and wrap him up in chicken wire, weigh him down with a toolbox and push him overboard. The conversation ended because Bob returned home from work. I left not long after Bob got home. Now later on she says there was a confrontation sometime later where Bob learnt of that. During the course of the preliminary proceedings in the Magistrates' Court she said - sorry, he said that this event occurred at Christmas 1996. Now so first of all we have two allegations, first a so-called offer to murder Patrick, a request to assist in murdering Bob Chappell made eleven years before and insofar as Patrick's concerned sometime before that. There is no evidence that the Crown will lead, as best I understand it, to show that there was anything other than a normal relationship from 1996 onwards with the accused and Mr Chappell, that was the evidence on - well contrary to the evidence it appears to have been harmonious, and there is no evidence of a financial need such as that suggested by Mr Triffett. Now we say to your Honour that relevantly your Honour needs to resolve this question by reference to s135 and s137 of the Evidence Act. The section -

HIS HONOUR: Well if your primary submission is relevance I need to start with s55?


MR GUNSON SC: Exactly.


MR GUNSON SC: We would say it is irrelevant to a fact in issue here. Even if these things did occur, we would submit to your Honour that they are not relevant, given the length of time and nature of the allegations, to be proved - to prove that the accused in a circumstantial case was guilty of murder as alleged. Clearly the Crown seeks to lead the evidence for one purpose; and that purpose is to say to the jury, 'Look she did these things in the past, she said these things in the past, she invited Mr Triffett to be involved in committing these crimes" - it didn't happen, and all that this shows is a desire all those years ago, it's accepted, to do those things. And secondly, it shows bad character. And that's in itself a reason why it ought not to be allowed to be led. It is simply so prejudicial that it ought to be excluded. Now, at 135, of course: The Court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party. And we only rely on that, and clearly it is. And then you have the mandatory requirement of s37, the exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings. And: In a criminal proceeding the Court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Now the meaning of this section was discussed in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales in the matter of Blick - would you pass that along to Mr Ellis, and a copy to your Honour - and the matter of Blick is reported in [2000] 111ACR@326, and the passage to which I wish to refer your Honour is to be found at the bottom of page 332, a decision of Justice of Appeal, Sheller J, where his Honour at paragraph 19 says -


When an application is made by a defendant pursuant to s137 to exclude evidence the first thing the judge must undertake is the balance of the process of its probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. It is probably correct to say that the product of that process is a judgment of the sort which in terms of appellate review is analogist to the exercise of a judicial discretion. (See cases referred to by Justice of Appeal Priestly in Moran v. McMahon and following particularly Leigh Transport v. Watson and Miller and Jennings). In the second of those cases Dixon CJ and Kitto J in an appeal against damages awarded by the trial judge said of the sum awarded that it was reached by the very full and careful examination of the facts of the case and it represents an informed judgment upon a matter which must largely be one of opinion and must be governed to a not inconsiderable degree by the estimate formed by the witnesses and in particular the appellant. His Honour continued - Translated it to the task set by s137. A trial judge's estimate of how the probative value should be weighed against the danger of unfair prejudice will be one of opinion based on a variety of circumstances, the evidence, the particulars of the case and the judge's own trial experience. In that sense the result can be described an analogist to a discretionary judgment. (See Hayden v. Guy to the Evidence Act). His Honour continued - Even so in pure respect there seems to me to be a risk of error if a judge proceeds on the basis that he or she is being asked to exercise a discretion about whether or not admissible evidence should be rejected because of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The correct approach is to perform the weighing exercise mandated. If the probative value of the evidence adduced by the prosecutor is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice of a defendant, there is no residual discretion, the evidence must be rejected.


So to come back to the starting point, the prosecution to have this evidence admitted would have to show that it was relevant to a fact in issue and the fact in issue in this case is did this accused murder Mr Chappell as alleged. We would say for the factors that I have addressed to your Honour already that it is irrelevant, if your Honour finds it to be relevant then we say to your Honour that it ought not to be admitted for the reasons I've articulated.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Ellis.


<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. I've just asked my learned friend, Mr Shapiro, to rustle up a copy of Lynch, I think it's Lynch that the Court of Criminal Appeal in this State agreed or held that the exercise under s137 is indeed an exercise of judgement, not of discretion.

HIS HONOUR: I think I wrote the principal judgment and I think I drew heavily on what Sheller, J. said in the passage that Mr Gunson's just read.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes. So we - that item there, that doesn't necessarily help us. Now this evidence - let's leave aside just for the minute, if I could your Honour, the question of the identification of the brother of the first plot or plan to kill someone, when what is transferred that was relevant from that plan to the plan that the accused was inviting Mr Triffett to join in was this, that was a plan to kill her partner, Mr Chappell, on board a yacht or vessel in deep water, to sink the vessel, having disposed of the body, it being weighed down, while the accused rowed away from it. In this case the evidence will be that it is - or it's the Crown case that Robert Chappell was murdered on board the Four Winds sometime between the 26th and 27th January 19 - I'm going to have trouble with this, I can see, 1998.


MR ELLIS SC: 2009, you get these little mind buzzers - that his body was weighed down, probably with the fire extinguisher at least, a very heavy fire extinguisher, which has never been found again. That the vessel was sunk or attempted to be sunk, and that - our case is, Ms Neill-Fraser, not rowed, but went away from the scene in a dinghy. Now that she would articulate such a plan in seriousness to a man eleven years ago, in my submission, must be relevant in the sense of s55 of the Evidence Act speaks of it; that is, if it were accepted it could rationally effect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding, namely, whether she carried out such a plan, almost identical in broad terms, on the very same intended victim. It is also relevant, in my submission, that, confining it again to the plan in respect of Mr Chappell, that here we have in the person of the accused, if the evidence is accepted, a person who is capable of harbouring such animus towards her partner, Mr Chappell, that she will articulate to another person a plan to kill him.


Now that is a person capable of bearing a very very strong animus towards her partner, and if she was capable of it then, it affects the likelihood, or the assessment of the probability of her being capable of it again in 2009. The evidence, in my submission, is strikingly relevant. I mean my learned friend would hardly be objecting to it if he didn't know that it would lead to an assessment of the existence of the fact in issue; namely that Ms Neill-Fraser in fact carried out the plan articulated to Mr Triffett and killed the person that she told Mr Triffett she wanted to kill and wanted his aid in killing, by killing him on board a yacht, weighed him down and sinking the yacht and she rowed away. Now the fact that the brother is identified is indeed a complication and I wouldn't say that that has any relevance of its own that she articulated such a plan to kill her brother per se, or that she articulated a plan to kill her brother, I don't put that there, but it's so bound up in what Triffett has to say about the very and highly relevant articulation of a plan to kill Robert Chappell that to exclude it would put the Crown case at a very big disadvantage. Triffett of course is a lay witness, not an experienced police witness, someone who can, you know, take a little bit out of the story here and splice it together in a way that doesn't involve perjury, he comes to the Court to tell the story as he claims it happened to him, and so to have him take out mention of the brother would really be an exercise doomed to failure or to adverse result in terms of admissible evidence in this trial and a very unfair exercise to him.

HIS HONOUR: Well you're not arguing then that it's relevant that the accused - if the evidence is accepted it's relevant that the accused articulated a similar plan twice, once in relation to the brother and once in relation to the partner?

MR ELLIS SC: Well it can have relevance but I would accept that it's more relevant - it's more easily - perhaps there is more easily seen a risk of unfair prejudice there, unfair prejudice, I'll come back to - but it does have relevance, especially since one of the circumstances that the Crown relies on here in this circumstantial case, and we'll come to it, it's objected to, is the size of the estate of Mr Chappell and the portion which the accused stood to inherit in the case of his death. It's a substantial estate and she was - she would inherit a substantial portion. It does have relevance that when she thought that she would be thwarted from the inheritance of a portion of her mother's estate by her brother she conceived of a plan to kill him.


HIS HONOUR: Well aren't you getting into character evidence even if you exclude the brother. If you're relying on this evidence in relation to the conversation about Mr Chappell you say that the Crown says it's relevant that she maintained a degree of hostility sufficient to articulate a plan to kill her partner and that that tends to suggest that she was so hostile as to be capable of killing, or words to that effect, aren't you getting into impermissible reasoning there, into propensity reasoning?

MR ELLIS SC: I'd submit not because it's really simply to do with planning and design.

HIS HONOUR: Well planning is one aspect of it but if I do let this in I'm - the next question is what, if anything, do I tell the jury in order to minimise a risk of unfair prejudice.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, yes.

HIS HONOUR: And I can certainly see some risk of unfair prejudice if - if the jury hear this they might well accept the evidence and think, 'Here is a terrible woman prepared to plan the murders of her brother and her partner', and they're likely to have an emotional response that might distract them from the task of carefully considering the evidence. Now - so there's certainly - it's as plain as day that there is a danger of unfair prejudice, the real question is - or the next question therefore is on what bases do - or basis or bases does the evidence have probative value and I'm a bit concerned about whether it can properly be relied on as evidence of what you've called 'very strong animus' -

MR ELLIS SC: Well when you say 'it' do you mean the plan to kill Mr Chappell?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, the 1990's plan to kill Mr Chappell.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh well it's clear that this is - that there, if Triffett's evidence is accepted, her feelings towards Chappell were such that she devised and articulated a plan to kill him and sought to enlist someone in it. Now if Triffett had agreed of course we'd have a conspiracy and with nothing further to be done. If he'd said, "Yes, I'll be in it," we have a criminal conspiracy.


Now that's relevant - where I started with, your Honour, was to say, let's put the question of the brother to one side and look at what the evidence - the gravamen of the evidence is, and that is that she devised and articulated and sought to enlist Triffett in a plan to kill Robert Chappell by taking on the yacht, by killing him and weighing his body down, by sinking the yacht, and by going away in some other sort of vessel from the sinking yacht. Now the relevance is this is exactly the sort of plan that the Crown case says - or exactly the sort of death that Robert Chappell met, and we say, therefore, it is likely - it increases the likelihood of it being met at the hands of the accused.

HIS HONOUR: Can I just ask you about one small point? I haven't yet got my head around every aspect of the Crown case. What is the evidence that tends to suggest - that the Crown says tends to suggest a weighing down with the fire extinguisher? Is it simply that the fire extinguisher has gone and Mr Chappell has gone, or is there more than that?

MR ELLIS SC: No, there's not - there's not more than that.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, go on.

MR ELLIS SC: Sorry, your Honour. So primarily I'm seeking to address you on the gravamen of the Triffett evidence, which is a plan in that detail. Now that it takes in an earlier plan is a matter which perhaps we could address our minds to mechanically, but the - to the mechanics of getting around that, if your Honour is troubled about unfair prejudice arising from that. But could I say as to the articulation of the plan to Triffett, "We're going to do the same thing, I want you to do the same thing as I've talked about with Patrick", brings in those things and the articulation of that plan and the evidence of it in my submission carries no risk at all of unfair prejudice. Now your Honour has pioneered, I think, it that's not too strong a word, a


consideration of a working definition, I suppose, of unfair prejudice in W v R [2006] 16 Tasmanian Reports, para 1 at page 43. It's an articulation which has been adopted by Porter, J. in State of Tasmania v Roland - no, sorry, Howlett [2008] TASSC 38 at paragraph 52, and it's an articulation which you advanced in P v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 81, which enjoyed the agreement of the other two members of the Court of Criminal Appeal in which you were then sitting, and the articulation was from - is at paragraph 29 of that judgment, it's from report No. 26 of the Australian Law Reform Commission, volume 1 at page 644 in this way: By risk of unfair prejudice is meant the danger that the fact finder may use the evidence to make a decision on an improper perhaps emotional basis, i.e. on a basis logically unconnected with the issues in the case. Thus evidence that appeals to the fact finder's sympathies, arouses a sense of horror, provokes an instinct to punish or triggers other mainsprings of human action may cause the fact finder to base his decision on something other than the established propositions in the case. Similarly on hearing the evidence a fact finder may be satisfied with a lower degree of probability than would otherwise be required. The substance, the gravamen of Mr Triffett's evidence carries with it in my submission no risk of unfair prejudice so defined. There is nothing unfair about a jury applying the commonsense view that if the accused articulated a plan so similar to that which appears to have befallen Mr Chappell in order to bring about his death and felt so strongly about it that she would seek to enlist someone and take the risk that runs of exposure, then that can rationally affect the assessment of the fact in issue that she was the one who caused the death of Mr Chappell in this way. It carries no risk of unfair prejudice. And my learned friend I should say has identified no risk of unfair prejudice. He seems to characterise prejudice as something which will tend to convict his client when in fact it's a test of relevance, a way - a way of looking at relevance. Now he's mentioned the question of the timing of it, that it's eleven years old, as if that will affect in some way the situation. Now I don't know whether he claims that that goes to the probative program or claims to go to the unfairly prejudicial affect or how he mentions it but I'd ask your Honour to consider this. If you are considering the time of it, and it's eleven years ago is a factor in the judgment called upon, then it's appropriate to reflect how the law deals generally with those matters and where it crystallises is in applications for stay of criminal proceedings which are based on events many years ago.


In very recent - very recently, I think it's the latest loose edition of the State Reports, 17 Tas Reports 357 - sorry, your Honour, I forgot to give you copies of - and Mr Gunson (indistinct words) which I hand up, and Tasmania and Ferguson, that's the citation to which I go.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: Now here's consideration by his Honour, Crawford, J. as he then was, of criminal proceedings against a man involving allegations of sexual misconduct over thirty years old. An application was made for a stay of those proceedings based on the delay. The - his Honour approached the basis - actually they were thirty - or it might have been over thirty years old - but at paragraph his Honour referred to the well known case of Jago v The District Court and at paragraph 72 cited, not directly, but cited from the judgment of his Honour, Dean, J. at 60 and 61 of that he said that there were five main heads of relevant circumstances in consideration to which he thought should avert in deciding whether proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the effect of delay on the part of the prosecution is that any trial be an unfair one in all the circumstances. One, the length of the delay; two, reasons given by the prosecution to explain or justify the delay; three, the accused's responsibility for an past attitude to the delay; four, proven or likely prejudice to the accused; and five, public interest in the disposition of charges of serious offences in the conviction of those guilty of the crime. His Honour emphasised, as his Honour, Crawford, J. said that they are not a code, but are nevertheless convenient. Now the length of the delay here would be in the order of eleven years compared to the evidence to be given in Ferguson's case. Not lengthy. The reasons given by the prosecution to explain or justify the delay don't need exploring because until this prosecution the evidence had no relevance and had not context, it could - it could not be brought in any other context, given that Mr Triffett had not agreed, it could not have been brought in any other context. But it is, of course, in my submission, apposite to consider what if Triffett had agreed? Would there - would there be any prospect of stay of those proceedings - proceedings for conspiracy against Triffett and the accused based on delay? Well in my submission there'd be no such prospect. The accused's responsibility for and past attitude to


the delay doesn't seem to be a factor in the present matter. Proven or likely prejudice to the accused, now if that's used in the sense of unfair prejudice again none has been identified, none has been identified, and the public interest in the disposition of charges of serious offences and the conviction of those guilty of crime, I hardly need to point out that this is the crime of murder, the most serious on the criminal calendar. So none of those factors in my submission could count against reception of this evidence on the ground of delay, if it is, and I submit it is, a fair comparison to make, a fair analogy to make between applications for stay of proceedings, which are only of course collections of evidence anyway, a stay of proceedings based on delay and then the question of delay itself in terms of this evidence. It's not really delay, it's - I suppose it's age of the evidence or something. In Mr Triffett's account there are plenty of - plenty of details, the fact that the daughters are still living at home, conversation on a yacht, was Mr Chappell running round, was he causing alarm, a trip to Murdunna is mentioned as setting a timing, the whole events are mentioned as leading to the break-down of what was previously a close and cordial relationship, are all details of course that he gives in this upon which he can of course be crossexamined and dispute can be taken, and there's been no suggestion of prejudice to the accused except the word's been said and it seems to have been said in no other way than to say, "This might help convict her". Well it might, that's why it's relevant in my submission. So going back, in my submission it is relevant, there is no risk of unfair prejudice. If there is a risk of unfair prejudice it might lie in the suggestion - I'm sorry, the evidence of another plan to murder the brother and it should not be beyond the wit of the Court to make a ruling which would be fashioned to avoid that risk, or if it is unavoidable, to warn the jury of it. They're my submissions.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Gunson?


<IN REPLY - MR GUNSON SC: As your Honour is well aware this is a circumstantial case. The best evidence that the Crown has that the accused went onto the yacht on the night of the 26th of January, the best evidence, is a witness who will say that he saw a person going out in a rubber dinghy in the general direction of yachts moored off the Yacht Club at about midnight and he thought the person had the appearance of a woman - that's about as close as it gets. Now it is important to remember there is a distinction between the so called 'Patrick plan' and the so called plan to - or the request to murder Mr Chappell back in 1996. the Patrick plan, my friend, I think in advertently, got the plans confused, involved the sinking of a yacht. It did not, so far as the second incident was concerned - at the top of page 25: she said: She said - what we talked about with Patrick has got to happen to Bob. She said she wanted Bob wrapped up in chicken wire. I was shocked and asked her what she meant and she said she wanted me - That is Triffett. - to take Bob out on the yacht and wrap him up in chicken wire and weight him down with a toolbox and push him overboard. So that incident did certainly - didn't involve her committing the offence, rather it involved Mr Triffett doing it, and certainly no sinking of the yacht. Now what my learned friend put to your Honour, as I understood his submission, was this - and I stand to be corrected if my note is incorrect - if the accused articulated a plan so similar and would assist someone the jury can rationally effect the conclusion that she did it. So what the Crown is really saying is, because there is evidence that eleven years ago and beyond that there was a discussion of the sort Mr Triffett would give evidence about that therefore eleven years later that must be what happened. Now we say this is not a strong circumstantial case, we don't need to go into that debate as to whether it's strong or otherwise, but in a circumstantial case there is immense risk that there is prejudice to the accused of the sort that's referred to in the Act and in the cases and the evidence simply


ought not to be led. It doesn't matter, with the greatest of respect, how carefully your Honour models the direction to the jury that you're going to get an emotional response from a jury saying, 'Look, she said these things, we accept Triffett's evidence, she said these things all the years ago therefore it follows that she did it on this occasion', that's the approach the Crown want to put and that's the approach the jury will take. If it please, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well I'll reserve my decision on that point and I invite your submissions on the second issue - Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Could I ask for an indulgence for about five minutes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I'll take a break for a few minutes.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour. Now I can't - and don't refer your Honour to any particular statements about this issue but the Crown want to be able to prove that the net financial value of Mr Chappell is in the order of, that is if he's deceased, of about one point three eight million dollars -

HIS HONOUR: Actually I should really take this together with item , Mr Kimber's evidence about the will, shouldn't I?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, yes. Yes, they can be dealt with conveniently together.


MR GUNSON SC: Now the prosecution want to prove the net worth of Mr Chappell which I think primarily comes from - with a value of the home -

HIS HONOUR: Sorry, what figure was that?

MR GUNSON SC: One point three eight I think was the final figure.


MR GUNSON SC: Of that about nine hundred and - this is off the top of my head, about nine hundred and eighty thousand dollars would come from his superannuation entitlements. The balance basically from the value of his home in West Hobart gets us to that figure. That doesn't take into account of course any entitlement that the accused might have in what I'll call normal circumstances to a share of the house given the long relationship and so forth, put that to one side. The prosecution says, for reasons I fail to understand, that this evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue and would say, as I understand it, because his net worth was that figure therefore that is a factor that the jury could take into account in determining whether the accused is responsible for his disappearance and they say presumably death. Now there is no evidence to suggest, leaving aside Mr Triffett, that in 2008 there were any pressing financial circumstances of the accused, that she desperately needed money for any reason and this was a quick way to get it. There is no evidence that she was even aware of the value of his RBF entitlement. Well I


assume one would have a rough idea of the value of a home that a person was living in. So we simply say to your Honour again it invites the jury to embark on an impermissible process of reasoning that there was a reason to do away with Mr Chappell because he was worth one point three eight million dollars dead. The same reasoning applies to the evidence proposed to be lead from Mr Kimber, and I identified the volume and the pages. There's nothing remarkable about the will. There's nothing at all remarkable about it, and again, there's no evidence to show that the accused was even aware of the contents. The estate was to be distributed quite fairly in various proportions, consequent upon various events, and again, we say the Crown would seek to prove the contents of that will through Mr Kimber and invite the jury to go on the same process of concluding that because she stood to inherit a certain amount, therefore, that was a reason for killing Mr Chappell. And we say that's simply not relevant to a fact in issue. I can't really put it any higher than that. The fourth item relates to the items on a computer that was taken by the police on the 11th -

HIS HONOUR: Well that's very different from the - items two and three, isn't it - should I - should we leave item four or -

MR GUNSON SC: Oh, I'm sorry, your Honour, that's completely my error.


MR GUNSON SC: Yes, thank you. (indistinct words) -


MR GUNSON SC: Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right, Mr Ellis, as to items two and three?


<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: Yes, thank you, your Honour. A circumstantial case; here is circumstance which is capable of effecting the jury's assessment of a fact in issue, namely whether Ms Neill-Fraser killed Mr Chappell; that is that she stood to gain financially. I don't know what the unfair prejudice about it is? It's a possible motive; it's a circumstance which makes its more - perhaps more likely that she may have carried out a plan to kill him, if it was a plan. It's just a circumstance for the jury to take into account. Now on the other hand, on the other hand if the Crown were not able to give the jury this information, what would they make of it? There would be speculation. It may even be more unfavourable to Ms Neill-Fraser because the evidence doesn't contain any evidence - and I know of none in the papers - as to her wealth, or her assets and liabilities. I understand she had investment - some investments and so on, but a jury might think, impermissibly, that Mr Chappell's fortune was huge, more - you know, tens of millions or something, they might think anything. Why not give them the actual evidence about what it was and they can - and they can draw such conclusions as they think are proper to after a proper circumstantial direction.

HIS HONOUR: Is there evidence as to who stood to get the superannuation?

MR GUNSON SC: It went to the estate.

MR ELLIS SC: Only insofar as the estate had divisions. I -

HIS HONOUR: Right, so the super was to form part of the estate and guide the terms of the will?

MR ELLIS SC: On the assumption it certainly formed part of the estate, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I see.

MR ELLIS SC: There's no evidence of any different direction to the trustees, of course it's up to the trustees as to where the superannuation goes and one would probably rely on the inference that the trustees will generally distribute in accordance with the will.


Now if - if the Crown were not permitted to say there would be a gain or possible gain to Ms Neill-Fraser on the death of Mr Chappell that can operate very unfairly too, that can mean that the jury perhaps says that because she has nothing to gain it is less likely that she did it, and so taking away that - this is just the very sort of evidence that a jury in this sort of case would be expecting to have. What is the evidence of the estate, where is it going to? Then they can make of it what they will, it would be by no means improper for them to say that the possibility of gain to Ms Neill-Fraser makes it more likely that she committed the crime, but equally they might say, "That doesn't assist us at all", but it should be in their province to select as one of the circumstances because there is nothing unfairly prejudicial about it, nothing unfair at all. It's unfair if they're left to speculate, that's unfair perhaps to the accused, it's unfair certainly to the Crown in my submission.

HIS HONOUR: In reply, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.


<RULING - HIS HONOUR: Well I will admit the evidence. It's - it's circumstantial evidence. It's open to the jury to treat it as having - as carrying little weight or none. But it will also be open to the jury to treat it as evidence suggesting a motive or possible motive, namely, that Mr Chappell was killed for the sake of the financial benefits that would flow to the accused. Whether it tends to suggest that or not is a matter for them. The strength of any such suggestion is a matter for them. But it's - it's relevant. It's capable of rationally affecting the verdict of the jury, it ought to be admitted. There's nothing about the evidence of Mr Chappell's net worth, his assets or his will, that might result in unfair prejudice to the accused. So that evidence will be admitted.

HIS HONOUR: Now item number four, Mr Gunson?


<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: Yes, item number four relates to evidence that the prosecutors would seek to lead as a result of material being found on the accused's computer that's identified in items one, two, three and four. Now the first relates to a search on Google on the 30th of December8 to the Galapagos Islands and Panama Canal. The 31s t of December it relates to US yachts and sales and the Marquises - the Marquises runs in the Pacific, I think north of Tahiti - and then some Google searches, as those described in three and four. Now there's no relevance. People are entitled to look at their computers and do Google searches of anything they want to do. This was a cruising yacht that had been purchased by the accused and her partner, and on the evidence it was clear they intended to do long sails on it. I fail, with the greatest of respect, to see the basis on which it can be contended that this evidence is relevant to a matter in issue. So you look at the - some searches about the Galapagos, Panama Canal and the Quasar Islands and have said to, as it's the Crown case, to have in someway reinforced the Crown case that the accused was going to kill Mr Chappell, and you look at some yacht sail sites and the same conclusion it is said can be reached. Now with the greatest of respect it can't be relevant, it can't be relevant to a matter in issue. If it is relevant, which we submit it's not, again we rely on s135 and 137, because we simply say it invites the jury to speculate. And no doubt what my friend will say to your Honour, and I'm guessing at this, is, 'Oh, look she was looking at the Galapagos Island sites she was going to sail there alone without Mr Chappell', and that's the rationale I suspect of it, that's the basis upon which it will be put to the jury and we submit, we say, is simply wrong. It almost, as it were, forces the accused to have to explain it and she shouldn't have to do that, and I should add this, it was never put to her by the police or the interview.



<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. The question is relevant because it tends to bolster the - a possible source of friction, possibly fatal source of friction, between the accused and Mr Chappell. The key, I suppose, is in the proof of evidence of Kate Chappell at page 1112, Mr Chappell's daughter, volume 6, at the top of that page, it's only a couple of sentences I'll read to your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: - The other - I think the word 'thing' or something like that - - about that day was that Sue was speaking about how fantastic her sail down was and how she could just keep going and didn't want to stop. I was a little bit concerned how Sue would settle back in Allison Street with dad, it was more a sense that she'd being living a humdrum life and had this big adventure. I spoke to dad briefly and he told me he was continuing his work and work - stay for another year to complete the work. Now last evening I filed a supplementary proof of Timothy Chappell, which didn't make it to the volume of supplementary proofs, but it was - and the intention is to lead evidence from him that on the two occasions that he was out with the accused and his father on the yacht, the Four Winds, they sniped constantly at each other concerning the boat. She wanted to go on long distance voyages and my father had far more modest plans for it. She had driven the process by which it was bought; my father was uncomfortable with its size. Now add to those impressions of the children of the deceased the fact that upon her return - upon her return here was the - and the jury will be asked to infer it was the accused, looking at yachts in exotic locations, Galapagos Islands, yachts for sale and so on. This is a circumstance by which the jury can say, "Yes, she wanted one thing, he wanted another, there was the friction".


Now my learned friend, Mr Gunson, says - has said in his earlier submission that the evidence will be that it was a harmonious relationship, the evidence is nothing of the kind. There will be evidence from the people in Queensland that the accused told them that the relationship with Mr Chappell was over, that she spoke of buying out his share of the boat, and so this is another circumstance in my submission which bolsters that. I mean I've - this is a fatality, it's claimed on the Crown case, between partners. I've prosecuted a case where a man murdered his wife because she wouldn't get off the phone when he'd cooked dinner. These seemingly small frictions can become fatal and this is a friction and there is some evidence supporting what the children had observed in what the jury can infer is Ms Neill-Fraser's search for exotica, for adventure, for big yachts on sunny islands rather than going down to Bruny Island and back again. If it please.

HIS HONOUR: In reply, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.


<RULING - HIS HONOUR: I think the evidence is relevant. It - I think it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the accused having murdered Mr Chappell. It's - it's a very tiny piece of evidence and one that might be regarded as carrying very little weight, but all the evidence relevant to the degree of tension between the two partners, in my view, is capable of affecting the assessment of the probability of the accused having committed the crime charged. I don't see any risk of unfair prejudice resulting as a result of the jury giving this evidence a false importance. It's - it may be regarded by the jury as irrelevant. If it is given any weight it - it's hardly likely to be much. But I don't see any basis for excluding it. I'll let that evidence in.


<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: The next item, your Honour, is item five. Now rather than take your Honour to the pages in the volumes, which are several hundred pages, that contain all of the telephone calls, I have extracted these entries because they appeared in a proposed list of agreed facts that the Crown put to me, and I should say this to your Honour so you're in no doubt about it; it probably would form an agreed fact if your Honour - or it almost certainly would form an agreed fact, if your Honour permitted the evidence to go into - for the jury. Now to put it in context Mr Stevenson is one of the people who was on the yacht 'Four Winds' when it sailed from Brisbane down the east coast of Australia, the mainland, to Tasmania, he was one of the two delivery men who sailed with Ms Neill-Fraser on that trip. And what's happened is the Crown want to put into evidence some telephone calls, or mobile text - phone call text messages that were sent to Mr Stevenson's mobile phone or received from his phone. I suppose the most sinister of those is the first one - Mr Stevenson, Ms Neill-Fraser, Merry Christmas - Surprisingly on the 25th December - - to you all, hope you have a good day, Pete. Followed by - We are, thanks. Merry Christmas Mr Stevenson - And so they go on. But we simply say to your Honour there is absolutely nothing in them that warrants them going before the jury and it would invite the jury to speculate as to some relationship between Mr Stevenson and the accused when there was not on the evidence. Now it's not been explained how they are relevant and I simply invite your Honour to find they're not relevant but if they are then they suffer from the defects that I've addressed. If it please, your Honour.



<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, I'll be submitting to the jury that it's one of the features that they can be aware of, and I'll be opening on this, of Ms Neill-Fraser's performance in various - very lengthy interviews that she will change her story and change her views depending on what's presented to her. And in the case of Mr Stevenson that she will - when she finds that he is saying something that doesn't suit her will attack him via those interviews. Now at volume 3 page 384 she is speaking of the trip down. She'd engaged Mr Stevenson and another man as professional sailors to deliver the yacht and teach her how to use it - and at the top of page line 5 she's describing the trip: So they decided we'd turn around and go back, and this is where professionals were excellent because they knew of a little spot we could tuck in, a little bay, and we did. So praise for Mr Stevenson there. But at page 528 something is put to her, it's comes from Stevenson, about the floor being taken up and Ms Neill-Fraser was asserting that a part of the floor was found by her in the bilge pump and police at 527 say that: Stevenson said that the floor in that boat was taken out but it was never screwed back in and the screws are in a plastic container up in the cabin, and to us it's logical that Bob was probably in there, and he's the one that got the screwdriver. And it could be said that Ms Neill-Fraser turns nasty there, and at she said: Pete was not there, he happened to be very drunk at the time. The - she then develops in the next interview, in volume 4576, it's put at 4576, at the bottom of the page: Peter Stevenson tells us on the trip you made down, on a number of occasions comments that your relationship with Bob was over and had been for a long time. He's more so specific about that that you were going to have borrow money from your mother to pay him out his share of the boat.


Over the page: I don't want to say too much about Pete, he discovered Bob's alcohol supply. You form your opinion about Peter Stevenson and have a look at his history - And down the page: He has a drink problem, there's no doubt about that. So she attacks his character in response to matters being put which don't suit her. And yet, in these text messages she is not just chatty, but affectionate towards a man who you would think, if he really was such a terrible drunk and she'd phoned him but he was drunk virtually all the way down on the trip and hopeless, she wouldn't be sending him messages of that character with three Xs, saying - almost flirtatiously saying that she's in bed with the cat, in brackets, she would, you would think, be as angry as she displayed herself to be in the interviews, and that's the relevance of those, your Honour.


<RULING - HIS HONOUR: Well I can't see any basis at all for thinking that any of these text messages might rationally affect the decision that the jury has to make. Maybe I'm missing something. I wouldn't - if the Crown wants to have another go at persuading me later in the trial that there's something relevant here then the Crown should. But it seems to me that - that the text messages show that the accused and Mr Stephenson were in touch with one another with Christmas greetings in relation to - they were in touch in relation to a financial transaction. They were in touch with each other about the sending of photos from Tasmania to Queensland. There were Xs no doubt representing kisses included in messages to one another, and there were friendly - friendly comments such as "Looking forward to seeing you". People often do maintain a cordial relationship with acquaintances whom they think less of than they like to let on, and I can't see that there's anything in any of these text messages that could reasonably be relied on as having anything at all to do with the question of guilt or innocence and so I can't see any basis for concluding that they're relevant and I won't admit them. Now if the Crown want to say later in the trial that I've misunderstood something or that they - evidence has been given that makes their relevance clear I'm willing to revisit the question, but at this point I'm not persuaded that they're admissible.

MR ELLIS SC: I understand perfectly, your Honour. Could I take it from that though that nor would you think it in any way defined of your ruling should the Crown be cross-examining Ms Neill-Fraser that these are referred to.

HIS HONOUR: If you want to cross Ms Neill-Fraser about these I expect you'll face an objection and I'll determine it then.

MR ELLIS SC: Very well, if it please. Your Honour, my learned friend need not trouble about the evidence of Dr Herzeld and the negatively void particles, I won't lead that.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. So finally there's item 7. Mr Gunson?


<SUBMISSIONS - MR GUNSON SC: I'm grateful to my friend. I've troubled myself all night about this, or at least an hour, and wondering what he was really saying. At the end of the night it became pretty clear that -

MR ELLIS SC: It can go in different places.

MR GUNSON SC: You can go and look at (indistinct word). Anyway it's gone, that's all that matters. Your Honour, the last bit of evidence relates to some photographs that the prosecution would wish to lead which were taken from a Commonwealth Bank of Australia ATM surveillance camera at the CBA Bank on Sandy Bay Road at the corner of King Street and Sandy Bay Road at 12:25 a.m. on the 27th January. Now - does his Honour have a copy of those photographs?

MR ELLIS SC: It's annexed to - the one shown to the daughters is annexed to the supplementary proof of -

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, of Constable Sice, I think it is. Your Honour -

HIS HONOUR: Just a minute, so it's in the supplementary papers?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour - 68, your Honour. The evidence is that a photograph was shown to the daughters of the accused and that photograph is at 70 of the supplementary papers.

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, I'm conscious of that one I was thinking of the expanded one of which I - which is in the other photographs.

HIS HONOUR: Right. Where should I look for this, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Page 70 of the supplementary papers, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I've got that.

MR ELLIS SC: I think it's fair to say that the Crown were seeking my learned friend to agree a series of photographs -

HIS HONOUR: Well I've got them as photos 1 to 5 in tab 1 of a blue folder.


MR ELLIS SC: That's right. And as it seems I'm briefing that Detective - Sergeant Conroy showed only one of those of that series. It would in the end be simply that one that we would seek to prove through him. I think it is in - I think it is in colour though the one he signed but whether it is or not it's - it looks to be 2 - number 2 of that series, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well page 70 matches photo 2 and it's probably the best of the five photos of the vehicle.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.

MR GUNSON SC: Just bear with me a moment. Now if your Honour goes to page 254 in volume 2 - yes, volume 2, you'll see there the proof of Detective Conroy, 254.


MR GUNSON SC: And if you go to the bottom of page 261 and you will see this entry, it relates to some discussions between Detective Conroy and the two daughters of the accused, who I should add, the Crown doesn't intend to call: Further Emma and Sarah questioned the progress of the investigation, particularly CCTV footage from the area. They were advised that some footage existed from an ATM on Sandy Bay Road. I stated, it just raised more questions, and then showed them a picture of a motor vehicle observed on the road at 025 hours on 27 January 2009. The picture is inconclusive, but depicts a vehicle similar to a Ford station-wagon, as owned by the accused and Robert Chappell. Sarah responded with a comment that it was her mother's car and Emma stated that it looked like her mother's car. Now the officer says quite correctly that's inconclusive. The only evidence of any relationship between this vehicle and the accused appears at page 601, volume 4, where the accused was asked some questions in an interview about it, and it's all very inconclusive, starting at line 14: The station-wagon that we've got that looks very much like your car -


Answer: Right. - and your daughter's look like your car - Which is not very complimentary - - I think it was 12:25am? Answer; I don't know. Do you actually - do you think that might be your vehicle?……I actually thought it was later than that. So no response. Later than 12:25?……I think it might have been later. Mm. What sort of time do you think it was?……Oh for some reason - where - we were still on daylight saving then. Yeah.……Right. Well I don't - well I definitely can't remember the time, I don't know, but I didn't change the clock. Question: There was another car that we saw on the footage and I think, again, it's testing my memory - Said the interviewer: - and I haven't got in front of me, but I think it was around about four in the morning, went straight up King Street, would that be your vehicle?……No. So they were the only questions put to the accused about that vehicle. The - one photograph was put to the two girls and the officer himself


says it's inconclusive and looking at the photograph it doesn't show very much. Now the Crown will want to put that through the officer no doubt to the jury and invite the jury to conclude, when the officer himself says it's inconclusive, that it's a vehicle driven by the accused.

HIS HONOUR: Well what did your client tell the police about her movements on the night in this interview?

MR GUNSON SC: Basically went down to the waterfront and drove home but wasn't sure of what time it was.

HIS HONOUR: And what did she say, if anything, about the route that she drove home?

MR GUNSON SC: It was along - I remember along Sandy Bay Road. But that doesn't - I mean Sandy Bay Road is a well covered road, I mean thousands of cars go up it day and night and any number of Ford Falcons would go up it day and night, it's not exactly some unique vehicle.

HIS HONOUR: What harm does it do your client if she went past the Commonwealth Bank at 12:25 rather than some other time?

MR GUNSON SC: Because her position is that she didn't go past at :25.

HIS HONOUR: What was her position in the interview?

MR GUNSON SC: Wasn't sure of times, as I read from 601 then, but the prosecution would be saying that proves it was her at that time, that's the issue. We know a car, a Falcon, went past at that time but the question is was it her car? And it's not for the jury on a photograph like that with the evidence of the officer who interviewed saying it's inconclusive, which it is inconclusive, one just has to look at the photograph to draw a conclusion.

HIS HONOUR: But if it was her car at 12:25 does that link in with anything else other than the observation of a person thought to be a woman at around 11:30?

MR GUNSON SC: Well if - I think we're getting into an area that -


HIS HONOUR: Maybe I should ask Mr Ellis what the Crown says.

MR GUNSON SC: I think that's the best answer, your Honour, yes.



<SUBMISSIONS - MR ELLIS QC: Yes, I'm being assiduously verbal here about what the Crown is saying about this. The Crown's point about this is, as I mentioned before, Ms Neill-Fraser in her interview showed a capacity to change her story depending what is confronting her. Now on the 4th of March 2009, she took part in an interview, and it's at volume 3, page 478, in which she said, as to that night, the evening of the 26th - the 27th January, she didn't leave the house at all she stayed at home. Now - so that - that's her position then to police in a video recorded interview. Now the showing - I should also say that the Crown is going to call evidence from Mrs Sanchez, the deceased's sister; Mr Timothy Chappell, the son; who will say that there were numerous family discussions in which the accused participated and never once did she say that she had been down to Marieville Esplanade that evening. Her position was that she was at home and she got phone calls, end of story, next time she went there it was the morning because she'd been told the boat was sinking. Never in any story known to the Crown that she has told did she say that the - that she had been back to Marieville Esplanade that evening until these photographs were shown to her daughters on the th of March. So 4th of March interview, nuh, never went there. 5th of March, shown to the daughters, Ms Neill-Fraser is on bail, the jury can infer that she is in contact with her daughters, there will be other evidence that the daughters are around, for instance, when next -

HIS HONOUR: No, hang on, she was - she was on bail at that time?

MR ELLIS SC: Oh yes, well she - not on bail - sorry, she wasn't arrested.

HIS HONOUR: She was at large.


HIS HONOUR: Hadn't been charged.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, of course - of course.



MR ELLIS SC: So the evidence will be that on about - on about theth of March, it may have been the 8th, but on about the 10th of March, we'll say from Ms Sanchez in a telephone call the accused for the very first time to Ms Sanchez's knowledge said that she had been down there that night. On the 13th March she took part in an interview with Felicity Ogilvie of the ABC. There was - this is according to Ms Ogilvie's proof in the supplementary papers - there was a discussion before the recorder was turned on. In that discussion the accused said that she'd gone down there that night, this is the 13th March. Before she turned the recorder on Ms Ogilvie said, "Is there anything you don't want to mention", the accused said, "That thing about Claire, which was relating her version to why she went down that night, and so no mention was made, and then Ms Ogilvie told Detective Powell that the accused had mentioned that she'd been down that night and that was of course news to the police. It was news to everyone and it wasn't until her formal interview on the 5th May that she admitted to this investigation that she had in fact been down there that night. Now to go back, the point isn't necessarily that this is her car, the point is that this was thought to be her car by her daughters and immediately after them being shown that, which might be her car, or I'll tell the jury, might not, she changed her story in a very significant way and that which had been previously withheld and, if her later story is correct, lied about was then offered, but rather exclusively even then.

HIS HONOUR: So are you contending that in previous - by previously saying that she'd been at home that she told lies - one or more lies that can be used as evidence of guilt in accordance with Edwards' case?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: And I'm saying the turning point about that is the showing of the photographs.


MR ELLIS SC: Also of course, according to Alexander's case, [1981] 145 CLR 395 the evidence of identification of the car by the daughters is admissible as an act of identification. But I won't be saying to the jury, "This is the car, you must think this is her car, that she was definitely there", I'll be saying to the jury, "This is what caused her to change her tune".


HIS HONOUR: Yes - the - I happen to know that Sandy Bay Road has two lanes going in each direction past that bank. What I can't tell from the photos is whether a vehicle in the right lane would be photographed by that camera or whether this grey vehicle is in the right lane. It doesn't really - it's not really clear from the photos, is it?

MR ELLIS SC: No, no it's not, not advanced as proof positive.


MR ELLIS SC: It's not advanced as proof positive; it's advanced as the trigger for changing the story primarily.


MR ELLIS SC: The jury could take into account, could think that it could be her, they could think that it was her, given the other admissions she makes. But it's not going to be advanced simply on the basis, here's a picture of a car you can show just - you can say from that picture that that's the accused and there the evidence ends, it doesn't. It's a far wider significance than that in the proof of the accused being a person who has lied and the jury will be invited to find lied because she was - she knew the truth would convict her. And she changes her story - the analogy will be that she changes - she advanced an alibi of the afternoon that Mr Chappell may have disappeared, that she was in Bunnings for hours. On being confronted with proof eventually her story changed. She advanced to police that she didn't go out that evening. On it being made known to her that there was proof which suggested to the contrary, her story changed. These are relevant things, in my submission, and the Crown ought to be able to give them to the jury as the unfolding of the Crown case.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Gunson?


<IN REPLY - MR GUNSON SC: The objection isn't the, what my friend called 'the trigger' that caused the change or alleged change in the story, but it's to the objection to the photograph going into evidence - and that's what I maintain my objection about. There's no evi - it can't be an objection to the officer saying 'I showed a photograph to X, and as a result of that I then spoke to the accused and got another story from her', that's perfectly admissible. My objection is to the photograph per se, because the jury, whichever way it's approached, would be invited to draw a conclusion that it was her car going past at that time and that's the critical issue, it's the photograph being linked to the time that we object to, not to the history as it were it's the photograph per se.

MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, could I reply to that because this is a very different objection?

HIS HONOUR: Well I'll hear you, yes.

MR ELLIS SC: If, as it seems to be now conceded, the evidence of Mr Conroy of showing a photograph of what could have been the car, that's all he says, the daughters of the accused is not actually objected to, then the jury would think it's a peculiar thing indeed that they wouldn't be shown the photograph with appropriate warnings; that is that the Crown doesn't say that this is certainly her car. To have the evidence which now doesn't seem to be objected to so emasculated would just be a puzzle, it would just serve no purpose I'd submit.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I don't want to reply further.


<RULING - HIS HONOUR: Well I think that the photograph is admissible as part of the evidence as to what allegedly triggered a change in the accused's account of events it therefore becomes a question of whether I should exclude it because of some danger of unfair prejudice or give some sort of direction limiting its use. I don't think there is a danger of unfair prejudice. I think the - if the photograph weren't seen by the jury there'd be a risk that the jury might leap to the conclusion that it shows more than it does, more than it in fact does, and I don't see any need for a direction limiting its use now that I know that the Crown doesn't intend to say - or doesn't contend that this was definitely the accused's car. So it's relevant, there's no risk of unfair prejudice if it goes in, there's no reason to limit its use, I'll allow the photograph to be tendered on the basis that the Crown seek to tender it.

MR ELLIS SC: If it please.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well that - now there's nothing you wanted to argue that's not on the list, Mr Gunson?


MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MR GUNSON SC: That's not to say that things mightn't arise during the trial.

<RULING - HIS HONOUR: Oh of course, of course. All right, well look where I am with the evidence of Mr Triffett is that I'll let it in and I'll let it in on the basis that it's relevant. I'll let in the evidence both in relation to the conversation about the brother and the conversation about Mr Chappell. In my view the undoubted relevance of it is that it is evidence of the accused having made a plan in the 1990s with striking similarities to the plan that the Crown contends that she implemented in 2009. The - Mr Ellis said that - submitted that the evidence in relation to the brother was that - sorry, that the evidence in relation to Mr Chappell was that the plan in thes was: . A plan that he be killed. . A plan that he be killed on board a vessel. . A plan that the vessel be sunk. . A plan that the body be weighed down and disposed of. . A plan that the accused would travel away from the murder scene in a small boat - and that those aspects are consistent with what the Crown says happened on the night in question. Now the statement of Mr Triffett of course doesn't state that the accused said anything to him about sinking a boat after killing Mr Chappell, but the statement does say, and I quote: She said what we talked about with Patrick is what's got to happen with Bob. And if evidence is given in those terms and accepted by the jury it'd be open to the jury to infer that what the accused meant included the sinking of a boat, even if there isn't evidence that she expressly discussed that at the time of the conversation about Bob Chappell. It's not evidence of a threat, it's not evidence - it's got the - it's not


a question of whether it's evidence of character; in my view it's admissible because it's evidence that she formed a plan with the characteristics that I've enumerated and that - that's evidence that certainly could rationally affect the jury in its determination of guilt or innocence. Now - or whether the - or whether guilt's been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Now I do see a significant risk of unfair prejudice, of course all evidence is prejudicial, evidence that someone who committed a murder planned a similar murder, or a murder with strikingly similar characteristics twelve or more years previously, is prejudicial in the sense that it - that is evid - that it is evidence that is significant circumstantial evidence tending to prove guilt. There's a risk of unfair prejudice in that the jury might have an emotional reaction to hearing the evidence, and that the jury might not examine it dispassionately, or might be inclined not to examine it dispassionately. However, in my view, the probative value of the evidence is such that it - its probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. Now I believe that to be so whether or not the - the evidence might also be able to be relied upon by the Crown as relevant because it displayed the attitude of the accused as at 1996 to Mr Chappell and the killing of him. Now I'm not persuaded that there is any proper basis upon which the Crown could rely upon that evidence as - otherwise than as evidence of the making of a similar plan, or of similar plans, in relation to her brother and her partner in or before 1996. The evidence isn't evidence of a tendency to do anything or a propensity to do anything, it's not relationship evidence of the sort that could properly be relied upon to put later evidence in context and enable a jury better to evaluate evidence of what happened later between two people. There's a risk that the jury might use the evidence to reason that the accused is shown by it to be a person of bad character and therefore a person whose nature is such that she might commit a crime of violence. I think it would be wrong to allow the Crown to rely upon the evidence on any basis associated with the attitude or character of the accused and that it will be necessary to give a direction not to reason on the basis that that evidence shows her to be a person of bad character and therefore a person more likely to have committed the crime charged. So I'll let the evidence in, but only as evidence of the making of plans in the nineteen nineties involving the characteristics that have been enumerated.


MR ELLIS SC: If it please.

HIS HONOUR: Now is there anything else before we adjourn to two fifteen?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

MR ELLIS SC: No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, the Court will adjourn until then.




MR ELLIS SC: - would be content for her to be bailed, your Honour, until Thursday morning at 9:45 a.m.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, do you wish to be heard as to this?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, the procedure under s12 of the Criminal Procedure Attendance of Witnesses Act 1996 is that I may require the intended witness to enter into a recognisance, so I require this witness, Barbara Zockling, isn't it? Is that correct? So I require that the witness, Barbara Zockling, enter into a recognisance in the sum of one thousand dollars to secure her attendance. What this means, Ms Zockling, is that you'll be free to go but you'll have to - but first you'll have to sign a recognisance, and that is a document that will have to be prepared while you wait. By that recognisance you'll promise that if you don't appear at this trial when you're required to appear then you will be liable to pay the Crown one thousand dollars, so that - so I excuse you from further attendance once you've signed that recognisance until 9:45 this Thursday morning and - but you'll have to be here then and at any other later time that you might be required otherwise you could be required to forfeit a thousand dollars. All right, thank you, take a seat. Ms White, there isn't a prescribed form. The Bail Regulations have something similar so if you could prepare that document while we continue. Is there anything else that we need to discuss before the jury is brought in for opening speeches?

MR ELLIS SC: Don't be alarmed, your Honour, if I seek to give the jury copies of some maps or, sorry, aerial photographs, one of which is marked with various locations - perhaps your Honour ought to see it? These, as I understand it, are agreed and can be tendered by consent, if necessary. It's the one with - no, it's not the one with the markings - there's a - there's one with just street marks and one with certain locations marked. So -

HIS HONOUR: Are you content with this, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well these are copies for me, are they, Mr Ellis?


MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: All right. And do you want to tender them or do you want to - well I suppose you should do that after the jury get here. You may tender them in your opening address or refer to them and then tender them.

MR ELLIS SC: Well perhaps I'll do that, your Honour, I've got bigger copies of - they'll be the ones I'd like to tender then and then hand out -

HIS HONOUR: Well I'll let you tender them during your opening.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right, bring the jury in - have they been - I forgot to tell them where the foreman sits - will you - you've done that - thank you.



HIS HONOUR: I forgot to say something this morning about where the foreman or forewoman sits, but I take it, you've been elected as forewoman, madam, I'll ask you to keep that seat for the rest of the trial. Now my role as the trial judge in these proceedings requires me to act as a sort of chairman of proceedings and to give you directions about the law but although I'm the judge of the law it's the jury who are the judges of the facts. It's up to the jury to decide what happened to Mr Chappell and what Ms Neill-Fraser did in relation to Mr Chappell and any sorts of questions of that nature, questions of fact. I'm the judge of the law the jury are the judges of the facts. Now the starting point in any criminal trial in this country is that an accused person is presumed to be innocent. An accused person is presumed to be innocent unless and until a jury finds that person guilty. So the starting point in this trial is that Ms Neill-Fraser is presumed to be innocent of the crime of murder. Because that's the starting point the Crown bears the burden of trying to prove guilt. It's up to the Crown to produce evidence for the purpose of proving to you that Ms Neill-Fraser is guilty of the crime that she's charged with and the Crown bears the burden of proving that beyond reasonable doubt. The one question that each of you will have to consider at the end of this trial is, 'Am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Fraser has been proven guilty of the crime of murdering Mr Chappell'. If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of that then your verdict has to be guilty no matter how hard you might find it to find another citizen guilty of a crime and guilty of that particular crime. If you're not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt, of the crime she's charged with, then it's your duty to find her not guilty even if you suspect she might be guilty, even if you think it's pretty likely that she's guilty, that's not the question. If you're not satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt then it's your duty to give her the benefit of any reasonable doubt and find her not guilty. Now it happens that Ms Neill-Fraser is in custody. Apparently that was reported in a newspaper today. Well that's quite normal in murder cases in this State. It's almost unheard for somebody accused of murder not to be held in custody. And whether a person is held in custody or not is completely irrelevant to whether they're innocent or guilty of the crime that they're charged with. You, each of you swore an oath or made an affirmation this morning where you promised - you promised that your verdict would be a true verdict


that's in accordance with the evidence, and it's the evidence that is the - must be the basis for anything you decide about whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. So don't, whatever you do, think that the fact that Ms Neill-Fraser happens to have been kept in custody is a bad sign or counts in any way as tending to prove her guilt. It sometimes happens that innocent people get charged with murder and are held in custody and then found not guilty. So, whether she's in custody or not is completely irrelevant. Now the Crown in order to try to prove guilt will be calling a large number of witnesses - I gave you most of their names this morning - and they'll come here and they'll give evidence in the witness box and it's up to you to make some sort of assessment of their evidence and how reliable or unreliable it is, and what it establishes, and what conclusions or inferences, if any, you can draw from the established facts. One of the reasons that we have juries is so that twelve people, who have been chosen from the community, can make some sort of assessment of the evidence given by other members of the community and decide about questions of whether particulars pieces of evidence are truthful or untruthful - correct or incorrect, and whether particular witnesses might have things right or be wrong or vague or confused or partly right and partly wrong, those sorts of questions are all questions for the jury because the jury are the judges of the facts. The proceedings are going to be recorded, there will be a transcript, I don't have plans to give the transcript to the jury so some of you might like to make notes of important things that are said in case you need to refer to them later on. In a couple of minutes when I've finished talking I'm going to invite counsel for each side to make opening speeches to you and that will probably fill the day. Tomorrow there's a plan that you'll be taken to Sandy Bay and shown various places that are relevant to this case and then once that's been done tomorrow morning the witnesses will start giving evidence. At the conclusion of the trial when all the witnesses have given their evidence you'll hear closing speeches from both counsel and then finally you'll hear a summing up from me where I explain every aspect of the law that you might need to consider as well as making some comments about the facts and then at that stage that's when the jury goes to the jury room to consider its verdict. But as I say the central question in all of this is whether you're satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Neill-Fraser has been proven guilty of murder. Now that's probably enough from me at this stage I'll invite counsel to make their opening speeches beginning with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ellis.


<OPENING - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Ladies and gentlemen, as you've heard I'm the Director of Public Prosecutions, the young man with me is Jack Shapiro, which is a - would be a top name I suppose, he's my junior counsel. He'll be asking questions of some witnesses as well and you'll hear from him. Now at this stage I just need to give you an overview of what our case is about, the evidence you're going to hear. I'm not going to mention each and every witness, it's just impossible to remember all that, but just so you know when witnesses come and go, where they might generally fit in. Now Robert Adrian Chappell was born on the 2nd December 1943, so as of Australia Day last year he was sixty five years old. Now this case concerns the events on Australia Day or 26th January 2009 here in Hobart down, the Crown case is, in the water of the Derwent off Marieville Esplanade. That's where, some of you might know, it's where the Royal Hobart Yacht Club is, there's a beach that used to be called Short Beach and is now apparently Errol Flynn Beach. You'll be seeing these places tomorrow if you're not familiar with them, but that's the location of some of the events that you'll hear about. Now Mr Chappell was the Chief Physicist in Radiology at the Holman Clinic that's attached to the Royal Hobart Hospital, so he wasn't a doctor, he was a scientist, he dealt with the machines and devices that people with cancer are treated with. The accused, Ms Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser, was his partner, that is they lived together, of about eighteen years and she as at Australia Day last year was aged fifty five. She wasn't working but she had investments apparently. Both of them had children from previous marriages, Mr Chappell had three children, Timothy, Kate and Claire, and Ms Neill-Fraser had two daughters, Emma and Sarah, and they were all adults, they had all left home and Mr Chappell and Ms Neill- Fraser lived together in Allison Street in West Hobart. In September 2008 they bought a fifty three foot ketch called Four Winds in Queensland for two hundred and three thousand dollars. They'd been looking for a boat for some time it seems and you'll hear evidence that Timothy Chappell - and it seems that Ms Neill-Fraser was the one perhaps driving the purchase a little bit more than Mr Chappell himself. I'm not yachtsman, in fact I'm hopeless I'm - when I use terms like 'ketch' or something like that it's really a matter of luck whether I hit on the right expression; so those of you that know a bit about this, when I make a mistake just please forgive me. But fifty three - a fifty three foot ketch is a pretty big boat, it's got cabins and beds and decks and so on, and you'll actually hopefully see it tomorrow because it's still moored - tied up or something, now as it was then.


So they bought that and there was some work done it, quite a bit of work done on it in the end by an electrician called Rowe and a man called Jim McKinnon, who you will hear from in this trial - that work was done in Queensland. And when it was finished and the boat was ready to go it set off to come to Tasmania on the 7th of December8. Now two professional crewmen were hired to help Mr Chappell and Ms Neill-Fraser get to understand the yacht, how it sails and so on. Their names were Peter Stevenson and David Cassidy. Hopefully you will hear from them both, but it seems that Mr Cassidy is in hospital in Queensland, so he's a little bit doubtful, but we're hopeful that you'll hear from Mr Stevenson fairly - fairly soon in this trial. So they're the professional crew and they set off, and it was a pretty eventful trip; things went wrong. There was problems found in the water, electrical things went wrong. But unfortunately, one of the things that went wrong was that Mr Chappell himself, Robert Chappell, or some witnesses will call 'Bob', developed a really severe nosebleed and he had to be hospitalised up in Queensland while the boat sailed on - didn't have to but the boat sailed on, and so while he was in hospital Ms Neill-Fraser and the two professional crew continued on and they reached Hobart on the 23rd December8 and some more work was done on the boat in Hobart that you'll hear about. On the 20th January last year Mr Chappell's sister Caroline Anne Sanchez came to Tasmania for a visit, an exotically named Mrs Sanchez I suppose, lives in Ecuador, married an man from Ecuador, but then I gather was living in Sydney, and she'd come quite often for a visit to her brother, Mr Sanchez wouldn't accompany her. She stayed at Allison Street so there were then three of them staying there, Ms Neill-Fraser, Mr Chappell and Ms Sanchez, and it was apparently a pleasant enough time. There were dinners with the children, call them children, adults. She will tell you that she didn't notice any particular tension between the two of them. On the 25th January they went on a trip on the boat down to Bruny Island. And as I said the Four Winds had a mooring off the Royal Yacht Club and you got to that mooring by what's called a tender, it's just another boating phrase that I've learnt in this trial. A tender is, in this case, it's an inflatable dinghy, it's a fairly substantial one, you'll see that too, some people call them a Zodiac or a dinghy or a


tender, and the system was that the tender would live on a trailer that would live at Allison St and when they wanted to go on the yacht they'd go down and launch it from Short Beach and go out to the boat, tie it up to the boat, and then use it when they'd finished sailing to come back. And you'll hear that that's how they did it that day on the trip down to Bruny Island. This tender had a new motor. When it was at sea rather than being tied behind it would go up on a sort of frame that are called davits, so it would be across the - up the bow, the back of the boat - the stern of the boat, I think. So there was that trip. You'll hear from Mrs Sanchez that Mr Chappell operated the trailer and how it was towed - operated the tender actually out to the - the boat and back. Mr Chappell owned a grey Ford stationwagon, and it seems that this was the vehicle that was usually used to carry this tender and trailer around. So Australia Day, there was the trip to Bruny Island the day before, reasonably pleasant, Mrs Sanchez was apparently given a fairly good go at steering the boat and up they go and back again. Australia Day was a Monday last year and Mrs Sanchez briefly saw her brother, Bob Chappell, at breakfast; they didn't talk much to each other, not morning people, and at about nine o'clock that morning Mr Chappell and Ms Neill-Fraser went out to the boat. Mrs Neill-Fraser said that she'd be back at about eleven to collect Mrs Sanchez for lunch, and the plan was to have lunch at the Royal Yacht Club - and that happened, she came back, picked up Mrs Sanchez, down they went to the yacht club, no lunch on, only pies apparently, so they had a pie and a drink, they took some photos - you'll hear from Mrs Sanchez that you couldn't actually see the yacht from the yacht club. Mr Chappell hadn't intended to join them for lunch, and as far as Mrs Sanchez knew he was onboard. This very brief 'hello goodbye, how are you' at breakfast between Mrs Sanchez and her brother, Bob Chappell, is the last time that he was seen alive by anyone except Ms Neill-Fraser, that we know of at least - it's the last time he's been seen alive. So he's on the boat, he stays there, she comes off, grabs - gets Mrs Sanchez, have the pie, then she takes Mrs Sanchez back to Alison Street because Mrs Sanchez is going to be taken - picked up by other members of the family and taken to Bruny Island to stay at her niece's shack there and they get back there, she'll tell you, at the house at Allison Street at about one thirty and Ms Neill-Fraser left to go back to the yacht. Mrs Sanchez was in fact picked up at about three thirty. So that's about one thirty Mrs Neill-Fraser - Ms Neill-Fraser, I'm sorry, has left Allison Street, she's left Mrs Sanchez there, had lunch and gone, and she's gone back, she says, to go back on the yacht. At about two o'clock, you'll hear from a young man called Christopher Liaubon,


he's a student and he lives down in Battery Point and he sails and rows some unusual sort of canoe, and he went down there to launch that and go out that day on the river and when he was earlier down there, he went down at about twelve o'clock, he'd seen an inflatable dinghy, a Zodiac tender, tied up on some poles down at Short Beach. So he went out to his canoe and when he got back it was about two o'clock and there was a lady there having difficulty with that tender because the outboard motor was stuck in the sand and he helped get it out, get it going. He left, he went up the hill there and he could see the lady in the - then in the Zodiac - I keep changing the expressions, I'm sorry - in the tender heading out into the river into a fair headwind, making very slow progress. Now it's our case that that was Ms Neill-Fraser on her way out to the Four Winds where Mr Chappell was. That seems to be agreed in the several interviews she had with police she recalled the young man helping her get the tender unstuck. So that all seems to be how things happened. The next morning, 27th January, early in the morning as they have to, a Mr Timothy Farmer took his daughter for rowing training down at Sandy Bay Rowing Club at Marieville Esplanade. It's another place that you'll see tomorrow in this little tour of things down there. And they were the first ones to arrive down there at 5:40am and he saw a tender inflatable dinghy with an outboard motor attached to it bobbing against the rocks in front of the rowing shed so he went down and grabbed the rope that's attached to the tender and he noticed that all this rope, the rope that's used to tie it up, it's called a painter, there's another term, was all in the tender itself. So it wasn't that it was floating around with the rope dragging from somewhere where it had been it was all actually in the tender. So he got it up, got it out, tied it to the rocks and it was - he was another person who had seen it, this one, the previous day tied up to the poles down there, so it's all one and the same. Mr Liaubon had seen it, no doubt Mrs Neill-Fraser had tied it up there when she came back in order to pick up Mrs Sanchez and so it's all the one vessel. So there's Timothy Farmer, now the rowing coach arrived soon after that, his name is Daryl Balding, he was shown the dinghy, out went the rowers, Mr Farmer and Mr Balding following in a powered boat, as they were returning they came past the Four Winds, which is on its mooring, and the noticed it was very low in the water especially at the bow, the front of it, and they got in and police were arriving, someone else had called the police to alert them that this boat seemed to be sinking.


Now the police who got there, their names were Constable Stockdale and Etherington, and they were from Hobart Uniform Police, they're not marine police, they're you're blokes on the beat, and Mr Balding took them out to the yacht and they got on and they saw several drops of blood on some steps leading down into the cabin. Mr Balding went into the cabin and found that there was water down there up to his ankles. He could see the ignition key in the ignition and he turned it on hoping that that would make the bilge pumps, the pumps that are supposed to pump out water that gets into the boat, come on, and he turned on the ignition, which was in the off position. Turned it on but nothing happened. They saw a torch that appeared to have some blood on it and there was a carving knife on the wheelhouse floor, just there loose. Pretty soon people with a bit more expertise in yachts from the Marine Police came and those marine officers were Constables Chris Lawler and Benjamin Cumming - sorry - Cunningham, they were in the marine division and they turned up; and Constable Lawler located a cut pipe that went into the toilet - I might be able to - this is a real - you'll get these pictures in due course, but there's a pipe, as you see it's been cut with something sharp. This - this pipe - I'll see if I can find a good one - not particularly - here's the toilet as you go into it from the door, and you can't see the pipe the pipe's actually on this side of it, and someone had cut that pipe and water was flowing out of that. And Constable Lawler found that next to it was a valve - in the cupboard here was a valve that was attached to that pipe that was cut, and so he closed it and the water substantially stopped. This is the sort of valve it is, it's just - you'll see a valve there and you just turn it like that - but apparently this one was very stiff, he had to get a tool to get it working, which - up to you, but you might think it means that it hadn't been opened and closed regularly - apparently it's good practice to do that on boats, but this one, perhaps, hadn't been. I'm sorry I'm a bit out of breath but it's been a fairly hard morning already for me, not you. So he got a multigrip and he closed that valve, but the water was still coming in, and under the floor near the toilet in a little hatch was another - what's called a seacock, it's the same sort of thing, and that is up and under a - very hard to discover and it seems that that was probably part of some plumbing or a toilet or something that had been discontinued and it let water straight in from outside. So rather than, when they re-did the plumbing, do up that hole and board it over, what seems to have happened was it was just put on with the seacock and a handle and a bit of pipe that went nowhere and that was also letting water in. Now you'll hear that these things are hard to find, that someone with an intimate knowledge of that boat perhaps would have known what to cut in order to make the water flow and what to turn on underneath a panel on the floor in order to make it come in direct, but you would need perhaps that knowledge of yachts generally and that one in particular to know those things.


Now of Mr Chappell there was no sign. About 7.10 a.m. that morning Ms Neill-Fraser was contacted by telephone and told that the Four Winds was sinking and she said she'd come down, and she did, and she drove down. She spoke to Constable Etheringham and said that her husband, Robert Chappell, was on board and he'd been on it since she last saw him the previous day in the early afternoon and they had lunch together on the yacht. You'll recall she had a form of lunch with Mrs Sanchez, but be that as it - the tender, the dinghy that was tied up on the rocks by Mr Balding - not Mr Balding, the other - Mr Farmer, she identified that as the one belonging to the Four Winds, that is her tender. She talked to him about the history of the purchase of the yacht and so on pretty much as I've told you, you know, it was bought in Queensland and they sailed it down and so on. She said to him that her husband had become a bit jealous and resentful of her getting to know the yacht while she was sailing it down and he was doing some general maintenance on the yacht and trying to get a better understanding of it. She asked him to contact her daughter, Emma Mills, who came with her husband Jeremy, and Timothy Chappell, Mr Chappell's son, was also contacted and came. She said to the constable from the Hobart Uniform that three or four days earlier - three or four days earlier, make a note of it, someone had boarded the Four Winds and had tried to access some hidden panels and they'd done some damage which her husband was fixing. She said the same thing had happened in Queensland and she'd been told that people smuggled drugs on yachts similar to Four Winds and they sell the yacht and they retrieve the drugs later. So she wanted the police to search with dogs. She impressed on them this - this theory about, well, that people were using the yacht somehow to smuggle drugs and had got onto open it and look for them or get them back, or something like that. She went off with her family members for a coffee and during that time a red yachting jacket was found on a fence at Margaret Street, which is just opposite from the yacht club. It might be about time I tender these maps, your Honour, I seek to tender, firstly the map with various streets and the Sandy Bay Rowing Club and the Royal Yacht Club marked - I understand this is agreed - it's not a map, I'm sorry, it's an aerial photograph.


MR ELLIS SC: And as P02, the same photograph, but with some more things marked on it.



MR ELLIS SC: Can I ask that copies be made available to the jury.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, we'll make the second one, P02.

MR ELLIS SC: Okay, that's the first - here's the first one. This other one that's marked not just with streets but with various descriptions, the first tender is a Zodiac, and there you see under the word 'Esplanade' I think that's what's called Short Beach or Errol Flynn Beach, that's where it was launched regularly, and just along from there there's a sea break, rocks and so on, that's (indistinct words) rowing club on the morning - early morning of the 27th January. Now out to the river you see the Chappell mooring, that's where the Four Winds was tied up, moored. Come back in there, you see the Royal Yacht Club and the Marina and so on. Now it's got a - it's got Zodiac left here on the afternoon/evening of the 20th January. As you will hear that's where Ms Neill-Fraser later asserted that she left it that evening or afternoon, that is the 26th, Australia Day. And over from there is where a jacket was found, Margaret Street, found on fence. Okay, well that's a little bit of a picture of it. So with that jacket, it was put in the boot of a police car and when they, the family, came back from their coffee they were shown - Emma Mills, Ms Neill-Fraser's daughter was shown it and said that there similar ones on the yacht, but when Ms Neill-Fraser was shown it she said it was not hers, she had never seen it before, very definite about that. As are the police very definite that at no time that morning in their presence was she allowed to touch it. Police - the witnesses, you will hear from the police, saw that Ms Neill-Fraser's left wrist was strapped and she appeared to be holding it. You will see some photo when we get to tender them, she always seem to be sort of holding it and seemed to have some strapping up here. She had a band-aid on the thumb of the same hand and later one of the officers asked her to show, you know, what's under the band-aid and she showed a fresh cut under there and, a bit strangely, she said that - this is talking about - that she cut her thumb, she said her fingerprints might be on a torch on the boat, that's what she said. She - so the red jacket, never seen it before, wasn't hers, not a really good explanation of whatever injury that it was but you also see the photographs, at least one of them taken by Mrs Sanchez, Mr


Chappell's sister, the day before when they've had lunch down at the Royal Yacht Club, and you'll see - you can see her hands, she's got no band-aid on her thumb and no strapping on her wrist, so something that changed during that time and the next morning at least. Now the Four Winds, the boat, was pumped out eventually and was towed to Constitution Dock. We're still on the 27th January and at :50 a statement was made by Ms Neill-Fraser to police. You'll have it in due course, the evidence, in it she says that she and Mr Chappell had a steady, healthy relationship with no major problems, that's the quote. She said she was not aware of any problems with the seacock, that's the one under the panel that had been opened, with the seacock or the bilge pump and she and Robert were always checking these areas for problems. She said the - that the previous day she and Robert Chappell had gone to the boat; she'd left in the dinghy at eleven o'clock while he stayed on, she returned, she said, to Alison Street, had a shower and some lunch. So there were a few places for lunch, I suppose, there's the lunch at the yacht club, there's the lunch that she said to the uniform officers she had onboard, and there's now the lunch at Allison Street - but maybe, neither here nor there. She said that she returned to lunch (sic) at one o'clock and Robert was working on the generator. Now I'll remind you that it's at two o'clock that Mr Liaubon assists the lady to get the Zodiac out of the sand - the motor out of the sand. She said she left the boat; that is she'd gone out in the tender and then she left the boat at two o'clock as Robert wanted to stay on the boat so he could work through the electrical systems on - by his own. She said she left the dinghy, left it next to the Royal Yacht Club tied up, she believed adequately tied up. She said that she was a good swimmer and she - and he - I'm sorry - she said that he was a good swimmer and he'd have no trouble getting to safety if he fell in. She said that thirteen days ago someone had been onboard and they found the chart table had been accessed and the freshwater pump cover open and the electrical switchboard was opened and the same thing had happened in Queensland she said in this State. Now the next day, so we're on the 28th, the boat had been pumped free of water and she went onboard the Four Winds with police this time, including a Detective Sergeant Simon Conroy - sorry - Conway - and she went about and she noticed, apparently quite quickly and commented on various things - she noticed that ropes appeared to be cut, there's a winch on the boat and she said that the handle shouldn't be in the winch it should have been stored separately, but it was in there. She said the fuse board switches were in the on - were in the incorrect position. She pointed out that there was scuffing in the framework to a hatch entrance to the cabin, which had not been there


before, and she said that a heavy fire extinguisher was missing, a big heavy fire extinguisher, apparently a good looking object, and some flooring in the main saloon had been unscrewed, and she said, "This wouldn't have floated free it had to have mini screws taken out to lift it up". She pointed out some fresh marks on the deck near the mast and the epirb, that's the signalling device. I did know before I started what those exactly stood for, but it's one of these things that gives out a signal for emergency, that was missing from its bracket. She had been asked not to touch anything but she - she went to the main electrical switch panel and she changed some switches around and the bilge pumps started and an alarm sounded, quite a loud alarm, and she kept turning these on and off until eventually, because part of it was under water apparently, it overheated and smoke began to appear and that was the end of that demonstration. But the point is she went and switched the switchboard and upon turning on - her turning on those - they look like fuses like in your fuse box - the bilge pumps came on. She repeated the concern that drugs may have been on board and it was connected with break ins and she urged the police to follow that line of investigation. Detective Sergeant Conroy on the 28th January went to the Allison Street home. He obtained some items for DNA identification matching Mr Chappell, like a toothbrush, you have to get the DNA to do matching and so on when you're doing a forensic examination, so a toothbrush is usually a pretty fair source of it, and he spoke further to Ms Neill-Fraser and he got from her a statutory declaration that time, that is a little bit more serious I suppose than just a statement, a statutory declaration, and that detailed her observations of what was out of place on the boat and she said that when she'd left it on the th she took the tender dinghy and she said that was her usual practice to do so. She said that Bob didn't like getting in and out of it unless absolutely necessary. She said that she'd thought further about her timings of the 28th (sic) January, that was her phrase, and she said that they went to the yacht at about nine o'clock in the morning, they had cake and tea at ten to ten thirty, she went home at eleven or eleven thirty a.m. to have a shower, she had then left, she said, her mobile phone with Bob. She and Ann, that's Ann Sanchez, went to the Royal Hobart Yacht Club for a drink, a drink and a pie, and she drove Ann around at about 1:00pm. I'll just read to you from that - a little further from that statutory declaration. I then drove Ann home at around 1:00am I then returned to Marieville Esplanade, the wind was getting up and I thought I had to get to the boat and see if Bob wanted to leave the boat. When I got to the tender the outboard was buried and I needed help in getting it


free. This was near the rowing club, a different position from the Royal where I later tied it. The wind was up and the chop got me very wet. I tied the tender up to the side of the boat, the leeway side which was the right hand side, I did not stay on the boat very long. Bob was a bit snappy. I was of the opinion Bob could have come off the boat due to the weather. Bob had checked the charts and said the wind would drop out and said he had decided to stay on the boat. In the end I left him the mobile, asked if I should pick him up in the morning for work. He said he may not even go to work so I left it at that and thought he'd ring if he wanted. I was sure he would change his mind later and call me to get him. Given the wind I decided not to take the tender to Marieville Esplanade I decided to take it to the Royal Yacht Club where it would be easily managed. From towing it up I went to Bunnings Hardware on the Brooker and then came home. Ann was not home by then as it was getting late, Ann had gone to Bruny Island for the night, she was being picked up after 4:00pm, I am sure when I got home it was starting to get dark. I stayed out at Bunnings for a long time, I did not buy anything but browsed. I drove our Ford Falcon wagon. I stayed alone at home that night. I made several phone calls and received a call from Richard King over some family members. It was 10:30pm when I got off the phone. The following morning I was notified that Four Winds was sinking by the police radio room I then went to Sandy Bay. So there we are, statutory declaration, back on the boat about 1, back away about 2, to Bunnings, stayed there, it was getting dark, this is January so that would be pretty late that she stayed at Bunnings. So that's the 28th - the 28th of January 2009, the statutory declaration of Ms Neill-Fraser's recollections. Her partner of eighteen years being missing, the yacht being found sinking, signs - clear signs of sabotage on it, a serious matter, and they are her recollections on oath. On the 5th of February Detectives Sinnitt - Sam - I think it's Shane Sinnitt and Detective Milazzo visited Ms Neill-Fraser at home. Robert Chappell was still missing and he is to this day, you'll hear in the form of some agreed facts and other evidence, investigations that have been done. That his bank book - bank accounts have not been accessed. His superannuation hasn't been accessed. His family haven't heard from him. No one has heard from him. He hasn't


been heard of - there has been no sign at all of him being alive from that day. Police in other jurisdictions have been contacted - nothing - no. One of the things of course fundamental to this case of murder is, you've got to be satisfied that he's dead, that he was killed by Ms Neill-Fraser; that he didn't stage his own disappearance. Well you'll hear from his children and you'll hear what Ms Neill-Fraser herself says, he wasn't suicidal. Here was the time, of course, when his sister was over. He had plans with his work, he was doing - he was going to stay on at least another year because he had a particular project he wanted to finish and there was no depression - nothing like that. There was no reason - and of course, why would he deliberately jump over, having made those signs of sabotage - that doesn't make sense. Why would he be washed away - where have the signs of sabotage come from then - that doesn't make sense. Anyway, we're back to the 5th of February; so those two detectives visited and they got some further background material, they made notes, she's pretty much as before, she said that when she'd been onboard on the 26th she'd got in Bob's way and there was a row, that he was snappy and he wanted her to take off - Now by this time some witnesses, Paul Conde, and Ann and Thomas Clarke, who you'll hear from, had told police that they'd seen Four Winds on its mooring at four o'clock in the afternoon on the 26th and an inflatable dinghy had been tied up alongside on the port side. As the water was choppy they noticed it, it was moving around a lot, and when these two detectives on the 5th February put these observations of witnesses to Ms Neill-Fraser her story shifted, and you'll hear this isn't the only time that her story shifts when other evidence inconsistent with it is put to her. She said - I mean obviously given that there was a dinghy alongside it she must have still been on board and that she'd stayed there longer than she thought, so her - what she said was that she tied the tender to a ladder at the Royal Hobart Yacht Club - or Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania, actually I think it is, and she left from down there in her car at about 4:20 p.m., so it's not two o'clock anymore, it's twenty past four. She said she then went to Bunnings and she gave a very detailed description of what she - how she'd driven there, at what speed, where she'd parked, what aisles she'd gone in, how she'd left there, that she went straight home then, she didn't go anywhere else. It was very detailed, she said the light was fading when she left Bunnings and when she was home she telephoned her daughter, Emma, and - at about eight thirty and before that she telephoned her mother. Now Detectives obtained and viewed the closed circuit TV from Bunnings for the entirety of the afternoon of the 26th January. It shut at six o'clock that day and they looked at all that footage from various places in aisles, checkout, the entrance, no sign of Ms Neill- Fraser, she's not to be seen on it.


On the 4th March she, Ms Neill-Fraser, agreed to a video recorded interview with police.. She read over her previous statements and she said that they were correct, although she may have stayed longer on the boat than she'd previously indicated. Now remember, police had told her that the dinghy had been seen at about four o'clock. She spoke of what she claimed to have been the break-in of the boat in Queensland and how Jim McKinnon, who was the man working on it, the mechanic, that we'll hear from in this case, was, in her words, frantic, and he was very nervous and he thought someone was watching him - so it's all pretty dramatic. Well you'll hear from Mr McKinnon that it wasn't in fact dramatic at all, that it seems that someone had taken the boat out, probably someone trying to sell it, that some electrical panels had been moved by an electrician and that he'd told Ms Neill-Fraser of that several times that it wasn't burglar that had done the panels it was the electrician. Anyway, to police she said that the break-in - also the same break-in in Hobart and she admitted that she hadn't discussed it with anyone - you'll see this is a break-in of a boat, there's no record with the police of any report of a break-in, and Ms Neill-Fraser says 'No, we didn't actually report that our boat had been broken into - we didn't tell our children about it. We didn't' it seems, 'tell anyone', and the reason that she advanced for that was that Bob was keen to impress his children about the boat and he didn't want it to get a bad reputation. She claimed that she'd contacted the Drug Squad to enquire about sniffer dogs but she couldn't say who she'd spoken to. She said she wasn't sure if she had left her mobile phone onboard the first time she left in the morning of the 26th at the yacht club, and she said that she'd looked across at the boat and Bob was on deck and said he hadn't got a phone and he could have waved to her if, you know, he wanted her. But, as you'll hear, you can't see that yacht from the yacht club - so that, perhaps, was not right. She said in this interview - this one's on video, you'll see her speak these words, that a young man helped her dig the motor out of the sand when she went back out, and she was asked about leaving Bob onboard without a means of escape and she claimed that he'd be at a greater risk getting in and out of the tender - getting in and out of the dinghy. Well you'll hear from Tim, his son, that (indistinct words), he was quite competent with it and didn't present a danger to himself. And then the police told her that she couldn't be seen on the closed circuit TV footage from Bunnings that day. So remember one bit of information, "Well you must have been there longer", so the story shifts but she's still gone to Bunnings. And the next piece of information is that she's not at


Bunnings, she's not on the closed circuit TV. They told her that it shut at 6:00pm that day and if she'd still been on the yacht at 4 it didn't leave very much time to be at Bunnings for hours that she claimed it had been. And she said, "Oh, in that case I wasn't there for hours", wasn't at Bunnings for hours in that case. She said she got a call from a Richard King at about 9.30 that night and she was asked by police - Did you leave your house at all that night? She said - No. They said - You stayed home the whole night? She said - Yes. The said - Would anyone else have used your car? She said - I don't think so. So this is - this is I suppose in short the version on the 4th March. Stayed on the yacht in the afternoon a lot longer. Didn't go to Bunnings, perhaps she's got confused, went there a few days previous, she didn't go that day. Got a phone call at 9:30. Didn't go out again. And this of course is an investigation into the disappearance of her partner of eighteen years. In this interview she's not given, what police call - refer to as the caution, she doesn't have to say anything if she doesn't want to because she wasn't a person in the position who needed to be cautioned, a suspect, she was making these statements voluntarily, your would think, in an effort to assist the police to find out - if not find Mr Chappell find out what had happened to him. Now she spoke of this call that she said was about 9:30 that night from a Richard King. He was a person who wasn't previously known to her and it concerned Clare Chappell. Now Clare is one of the


children of Bob Chappell and she unfortunately suffers from - from time to time, most of the time, from mental health problems, and what Mr King, who was some - a friend of hers, not a formal carer, not a person with formal qualifications, but a friend, he wanted Tim Chappell's phone number because Clare has a general paranoia, things make her frightened, and she was frightened, among other things, in particular with her father, whom she hadn't seen for a year, and the boat, something which she thought there was some connection there and she wanted to know that he was safe, and she was having to deal with mental health problems. Now let's not make too much of this, it's coincidental, but that's about it. There, you will hear, even from Ms Neill-Fraser, is no way that Clare herself could have got out there, even driven down there, could have been in anyway involved in this - this is just a coincidence, and a strange one, but there can be no responsible suggestion that it's anything more than that, I suggest. Now we're still at this interview on the 4th of March and police came back to the question of how it is that she'd previously stated - not just once - that she'd spent hours at Bunnings, and they were asking her because she was one of the first (sic) persons to see Bob alive, she said: I mean, I know that I must be a suspect; I mean I did not murder him and throw him overboard attached to the fire extinguisher. Well the fire extinguisher is a means of weighing a body down, it seems to have been suggested there for the first time by her - I'm not saying that it mightn't have been floated by others or whatever, but that's - that's what she said at that stage, "I did not murder him and throw him overboard attached to the fire extinguisher". Now detectives said that Peter Stevenson, who had been one of the crew, one of the two people helping deliver the yacht, a professional yachtsman from Queensland, had told them that the floor panels in the saloon area, which she'd seen to be up, were removed on the way down, the panels are lifted and replaced but not the screws, so they were put in a container and the implication was that when the water came in the panel just floated up because it wasn't screwed down, and they said that the electrical panel was also removed on the trip and that these things were known, according to Mr Stevenson. She said Stevenson was wrong, it was screwed down but not with as many screws and she hadn't previously mentioned any work on that section. She reiterated that her relationship with Mr Chappell was a committed and intimate one.


Now you'll hear from James McKinnon as I've said, the mechanic who worked on the boat, that a month previously, on about the 4th or th February 2009, he received a phone call from Sue Neill-Fraser and she told him of the murder investigation and she told him that a fire extinguisher had been used to weigh the body down and she said that she and Bob had broken up sometime before, but she hadn't told police and she wasn't going to. And you'll also hear from Peter Stevenson, the crewman, and I hope David Casson, who's the man in hospital at the moment but we hope we can get him, that she told Stevenson that it was over between she and Bob, that it had been for a long time, and she talked to both of them about having to buy out Bob's share of the boat. So to the police it was a committed relationship but to these three men in Queensland quite a different story, it was over. Now the next day, the 5th March, Detective Sergeant Conroy spoke to the accused's daughters, Emma and Sarah, different surnames, Emma Fraser-Mieke and Sarah Bowles, and those ladies naturally asked about the progress of the investigation, particularly closed circuit television, and he told them of some footage from an ATM, automatic teller machine, in Sandy Bay that has a bit of a view of Sandy Bay Road and he showed them a still from it and it's a vehicle similar to a Ford station wagon going along Sandy Bay Road at 12:25am on the th January, okay. So that's just after midnight, 27th January a car similar to the Ford station wagon was captured going around Sandy Bay Road and Mr Conroy, Detective Sergeant Conroy, showed the accused's daughters a still from this closed circuit TV. Now it's not our case, it's not our case, let me be clear, that you can say with a degree of confidence just on that photo that that was the accused driving although one of the daughters said that that was mum's car and the other one said it looks like - it looks like the car, so it's similar, it's similar. But the point about it - well the point about this evidence is that at this stage of course Ms Neill-Fraser wasn't arrested, wasn't in custody or anything like it, she was living at her home in Allison Street, her daughters, who no doubt you'll hear, were visiting her and were there with her at the time, a logical inference, a logical inference, that they would have said down at the police station, "Sergeant Conroy showed us a car that looked like yours at :25am on the 27th". Well another change came over Susan Neill-Fraser's story from that point. A new version of events that she was telling people entered


the story. On about the 8th March or it may have been the 10th she spoke to Caroline Sanchez, Mr Chappell's sister who had being over staying, spoke to her by telephone. Now you'll hear from Mrs Sanchez that in the days following the disappearance of Robert Chappell there was family meetings and, you know, she often heard Sue Neill-Fraser saying what had happened, what she'd done that day, oh, it happened, you know, but never - never had she heard what she heard that night because what Sue Neill-Fraser said to Caroline Sanchez then was that after she'd received the call from Clare Chappell's friend, Richard King, about Clare's mental health problems, she felt uneasy about Bob and she decided to drive down Marieville Esplanade in her car. She said she got down there and the boat was in darkness so she drove back again. On the 13th of March she gave an interview to Felicity Ogilvie from the ABC. They had a talk beforehand and in that talk she said that Richard King had said that Claire Chappell was suicidal - there's no - she said that Claire - Richard King had said that Claire Chappell was suicidal and talked about going onboard the yacht. She said that she was worried about this and she drove down to Marieville Esplanade - so this is a talk while the recorder is not on. And so Felicity Ogilvie said, "Okay, we'll do the interview now, I'm about to turn the recorder on, is there anything you don't want to talk about?" and she said, "Oh, I don't want to talk about Claire" you know don't want to - almost protective about Claire, so that part wasn't mentioned. The drugs onboard theory was given a run again, I think, in that interview, but you'll hear it anyway. Ms Ogilvie, the reporter, then spoke to Detective Inspector Peter Powell, who was the officer in overall charge of this investigation. And she mentioned to him, and saw nothing wrong with it, that Ms Neill-Fraser had been down there - had said that she'd been down there that night and apparently he's (indistinct word) at the floor - and he wanted a statement from her, from Ogilvie, and she as a courtesy said that she'd ring Ms Neill-Fraser. Upon ringing her she was told very adamantly and very seriously that that was off the record, that wasn't for the police to know - in other words. I'll be another half an hour, your Honour, if you wanted to think of a break for anyone?

HIS HONOUR: Well, I'll ask the jury - would you like a break for ten minutes or would you like to keep going? All right, keep going.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh, it's only me that wants a break.

HIS HONOUR: Well do you need one, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: No, I'm right, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: I'm a big strong boy. Now on the 9th of March, Inspector Powell put out a media release asking for a person who had called anonymously on the 29th of January, three days - well, yeah, three days after, to come forward and the next day a Mr John Hughes presented at police station and identified himself as that caller. He said that he had called anonymously from a phone, I think at the university. He - you'll hear from him, he's a fulltime carer for his mother, she's had a stroke and he has to look after her pretty much all the time. Pretty hard life, he gets about half a day off per week from this when his brother gives him some relief from it, and on this day, Australia Day, on that evening he'd been to the movies or the casino following some golf, he's not entirely sure which, but he went down to Marieville Esplanade where he sometimes does to look out over the water and get just a bit of peace and tranquillity, nothing amazing about it. So he went down there and he was there at about half past eleven, twelve o'clock, and he parked his car near the end of the sheds at the yacht club, so you know, round - well I'll let him show you, I'd better not try it - and there was no one else around, in particular there was no one standing around fires - you're puzzled by that mention but I'll come back to it. He heard an outboard motor and he saw an inflatable dinghy with a single person in it. His impression was that that person was female, the dinghy was heading at a slow speed towards the yachts moored out from the boat sheds where, ladies and gentlemen, the Four Winds was moored. He lost sight of it and he drove off shortly after and, not wishing to be involved, he says a complicated life, he anonymously told police about his observations. So there we have it, a man just on his own, no connection with this case, and he sees inflatable dinghy, an outboard motor, a single person in it at about half past eleven, twelve o'clock on Australia Day evening heading out to where the Four Winds was. On the 23rd March Ms Neill-Fraser again spoke to Caroline Sanchez, Mr Chappell's sister, by telephone and she gave yet another version of events. She said that after this call from Richard King about Claire with the mental health problem she, Ms Neill-Fraser, drove down to Marieville Esplanade. She said that many parking spots were taken and she drove around looking for a park in the area. She said she decided to leave the car up there overnight and that she walked home to West Hobart on foot. She wanted to walk down next morning for exercise. Mrs Sanchez asked her specifically where


she'd parked the car and Ms Neill-Fraser said that - oh, well she was a bit vague about that. She drove around and she parked in the area because the spaces close to the beach were taken by people with Australia Day barbecue, she didn't say where she parked, so Mrs Sanchez knew again that here was yet another version. Here was a version of drive - a call from King, driving down but parking the car and walking back whereas in the previous version that she'd given her, the first version of actually going down that night, it was driving down, couldn't see, drove back home. On the 5th May another interview took place, again recorded on video, you'll see it again, police this time they cautioned Ms Neill- Fraser that she didn't have to say anything, what she did would be recorded and maybe given in evidence. Notwithstanding that, yes, she was pleased to be interviewed again and in this version of events that she gave the - the trip to Bunnings was abandoned completely. In the various versions she had given it had gotten smaller and smaller and now it was given up entirely. No, she must have been confused, she'd been so shocked that she'd been to Bunnings a few days earlier, she said, she left Bob on the boat that day so it was the same circumstances. She said that if she went out to the boat she couldn't say what time it was she left but she tied it up at the Royal and walked back to Allison Street leaving the car there. She didn't know what time that was nor could she name where the car was nor be definite about whether it was daylight or dark, but the car was there at least until she went down at night. So she's gone out to the boat, this is all in the afternoon apparently, and she's left but she doesn't know when, doesn't know when she left now but she didn't go to Bunnings that was a mistake because she'd been a couple of other days ago and she walked back. Then she got the call from Richard King and it unnerved her terribly. She didn't mention this earlier because Tim Chappell was upset about any mention about Claire, and Mr King had said to her that she had a fantasy - that Claire had had a fantasy about him and her sailing away in the yacht, and so Ms Neill-Fraser said she didn't decide - she decided not to ring Bob because it was late, she didn't know the time but she would go and get the car back, which you'll remember in this version she'd left there in the afternoon, or the evening, not sure when, walked back home, just wanted the exercise in the morning. So she decided she'll get the car and then she'd be ready when Bob phoned, and she was also unnerved about the call. And so she walked down there to where the car was, not actually stating again where it was, but when she got to the car she got the keys out, had the wrong keys, she'd got the keys to her farm but not the keys to the car. So she walked back to Allison Street, got the keys, and then went back down again and got in the car and she drove along to the rowing sheds and she got out


of the car and she walked down to the back, there was a fire and there were homeless people around there, around the fires, standing around, and she couldn't see the boat but she felt better and so she drove off - drove home. Mr Hughes' observations of, you know, the man taking the - taking the breather, were put to her and she denied it was her in the dinghy going out there that evening and she said that she'd tied it up securely, so some other reason that it had become unstuck. Another matter that was put to her was concerning the red jacket, which had been found on the fence in Margaret Street - remember the first day there she'd gone up for coffee - this is Australia - the day after Australia Day, and a red yachtsman's type jacket had been found and had been put in the boot of a police car and she'd been shown it and no, it wasn't hers, never seen it. Well, you'll hear that swabs were taken from the jacket, which on analysis were found to contain DNA, from at least three contributors, and the major DNA profile matched that of Susan Neill-Fraser, and the chance of a second person unrelated to her having the same DNA is less than one in one hundred million. So if that's not her DNA on that jacket that she'd never seen before and wasn't hers it's a remarkable long shot coincidence that there's someone with the same DNA profile. After that she was arrested and charged. Now this is what is called a circumstantial case and that doesn't mean it's a second rate case or a second grade case or not a case to worry about at all, it just means that there's no direct evidence, no one's seen the person charged in the act or there's no confession - distinct confession from that person, and so other circumstances are added to it and among those circumstances I suggest, or will suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day what you can take into account is that Sue Neill-Fraser told lies, bare faced lies to police concerning her movements on the afternoon of the 26th January 'til the early morning of the 26th January. The only time that she can be reliably accounted for in that time is by telephone records to her house which show that - I'd better get these right probably - a telephone call was made from the landline telephone at Allison Street, 7 Allison Street, to the landline of Mrs Neill-Fraser's daughter, Emma, at 9:17 p.m. on the 26th January, this is Australia Day, so this is the first call. She's called her daughter at 9:17, the call lasted for approximately fourteen minutes. It seems straightaway, because at 9:31 she telephoned the landline subscribed to her mother, Helen Neill-Fraser, at 9:31 and the call lasted for five minutes, then the records show that at 10:05 a call was sent to the land line of Allison Street from the one subscribed to by Richard King and that call lasted fro twenty nine minutes. And it's only over


that period, and one more that I'll mention in a minute, that we can reliably account for Ms Neill-Fraser's movements. There was one more call, which you might think is significant you might not, at :08am on the 27th of January there was a call made to star ten hatch, and star ten hatch is a call made to see if you've had any calls. So your last call there is a twenty nine minute one at 10:05 and then 3:08 - haven't been any calls. Stories about going to Bunnings, huge detail about the aisles that she'd gone up and down and how she drove in and out - not true. Denials about going back down to Marieville Esplanade - not true. Denial about seeing that jacket before and what you make of DNA evidence - not true. They're some of the circumstances that you can take into account. Others are that you will be given evidence - make of it what you will - make of it what you will, but Mr Chappell's estate was worth about .38 million dollars net. That he'd made provision in his will, a generous provision, including for Ms Neill-Fraser. That's a circumstance you can take into account. You might think it takes you nowhere, you might think it does, it's there. Another is that - I've just gone blank for the moment - of the will - yes, that's right - that Ms Neill-Fraser's computer was seized by police and analysed and it seems that upon her return back from the delivery of the yacht from Queensland she did a lot of searching on internet sites of yachts for sail in exotic places like Galapagos Islands and so on. And, you know, you think well where does that get us? Well it's this, it was Tim Chappell's observation and Clare Chappell, the daughter of Bob Chappell's observation, that when she came back from that trip that was a big adventure, that was really what she wanted to do, those sort of big trips, but their father not so keen. His idea of a good time on the yacht seems to be to go out on the dinghy have a wine come back maybe take it down to Bruny Island and back, he was not comfortable, they will say, with the size of that yacht and perhaps there was friction. Again it's a circumstance, perhaps there was friction. Perhaps something happened on board that was not related to any of those things. Like the legal profession say I've done - there's been a case here in Hobart got prosecuted for murder where a man got so infuriated that his wife wouldn't get off the phone after he'd cooked dinner that he killed her, these things do happen. But there were tensions, it would seem, there were some tensions about the yacht and they're all circumstances you can take into account. I'll also be calling a man whose name is Phillip Triffett. He and his then partner Maria Hanson were friends of - first Maria Hanson was a friend of Sue Neill-Fraser and they came to know each other, all of


them as couples, friends, Mr Chappell, Ms Neill-Fraser, and they had quite a bit to do with each other. Mr Triffett was a younger man; this is in the 1990s, about the mid 1990s. Mr Triffett will tell you that in those days Ms Neill-Fraser owned a yacht that was moored down at Electrona and it wasn't as grand as the Four Winds but she had some - had some trouble with it and Mr Triffett's a handy sort of bloke apparently and she asked him to see if he could fix it so he had a look at the engine and so on, and a little time after that Ms Neill- Fraser was having some sort of a feud with her mother and she became concerned that her brother, Patrick, would receive all the inheritance - her mother's apparently reasonably well off according to Mr Triffett - was going to inherit the lot and she would inherit nothing and one day at the yacht at Electona Ms Neill-Fraser, the accused, said to Phillip Triffett that she wanted to get rid of Patrick, her brother, and she said it in a way that he knew that she was serious about it. She said that she wanted him to go out on the yacht with her and Patrick, out to deep water. He was to push Patrick overboard after weighing him down with a toolbox and things off the yacht and then sink the yacht closer to shore and she would row back to shore. He didn't want to be in that, he couldn't even swim, he said. She showed him a pipe, a white hose pipe on a bilge pump and she said, "That would enable you to sink the boat because you could hold that over the side and reverse", and send reverse polarities on it, "wire it backwards", in Mr Triffett's words, and it would bring water into the boat and sink it. Anyway things apparently smoothed over with her mother and that plan wasn't mentioned again except a little time later he will tell you that he was at Allison Street to see if his partner, Maria Hansen, was there and Sue Neill-Fraser started telling him about how stingy Bob was, that Bob was drinking too much, that he was waking up in the night and running around the house with knives looking for intruders and she said, "Bob's got to go", and she said, "What we talked about with Patrick has got to happen with Bob". She said that she wanted Bob wrapped up in chicken wire, she wanted him to take Bob out to the yacht, wrap him in chicken wire, weigh him down and push him over. So what we talked about with Patrick has got to happen to Bob. So that was a plan to murder someone by pushing them overboard, weighed down in some way, weighed down and sinking the boat and going to shore. It's - well the significance of it is for you. Mr Hanson - I'm sorry, Mr Hanson - Mr Triffett will say that soon after that they had a trip as a couple to Murdunna, and that seemed to be in early '97, and after that they were at dinner at - at Allison Street and Sue Neill-Fraser was praising up Bob Chappell, his cooking, and Triffett said, "This is hypocritical" or you know "why don't you tell him what you intend to do" and that - she showed him the door and that was the end of that relationship.


So that's another circumstance, of course, that sometime previously she had and articulated to a person a plan to kill Bob Chappell. A plan that involved getting him on a yacht; getting him overboard weighted down, and sinking the yacht. You'll hear of extensive police diving searched under and around the yacht and in other areas that failed to find any sign, not only of Mr Chappell, but of the fire extinguisher and so on. The EPIRB it did wash up it washed up on the beach near the Casino and was found by someone who handed it into the police and it contains no forensic evidence of great note - his DNA, I think, or fingerprints of the man who found it, but otherwise nothing particularly there. The - some of the blood on the yacht was swabbed and found to be Mr Chappell's - that may or may not be useful, given that he'd had a nosebleed. But the tender itself was also subjected to a screening test for blood called luminol, and what happens with luminol is you put it - you put it on objects where there might have been blood and turn off the lights and it gets lum - it goes luminous in the presence of blood, and so that reacted quite strongly, the tender and the inside of the tender for the presence of blood, and swabs taken from the tender were found to match, with a high degree of probability, Mr Chappell's DNA. But on the other hand another screening agent for blood taken on that tender showed negative and one of the forensic scientists looked under the microscope to try and find some - what they look for is red/brown indications of blood and couldn't find any, so some indications of blood, his DNA, but others - others, no. Now no doubt it will be said, "Well look, this is a case where you can't even say how he was killed or even why", that's true, that's true. This is a case where all the circumstances, it will be submitted, and I don't want to go into addresses at the moment, but it will be submitted at the end, add up to a case of murder beyond reasonable doubt against Sue Neill-Fraser. I have to tell you all these things and I've tried to tell it to you in a narrative way, in a sort of a - in the way it happened, but when we get into the evidence that we want to present we can't do it that way. We've got witnesses in and out and it's - it can be all jumbled up, it's just unavoidable. For instance, I want to call the Chappell children pretty early in the piece because they want to see the case. Well that's a little bit out of order. The man in Queensland who's in hospital, who knows when or if we can get him. I won't be able to call Maria Hansen, Mr Phillip Triffett's then partner but I do expect to call a doctor who has examined her and pronounced her not fit to be able to attend court, and so that will be offered to you as an


explanation for not calling her. But other people - it's not like a play or a film where a character comes on and does their bit and then goes off and the action happens and then they come back on and so on, we've got to - we can hardly ever call a witness back again, so say Mrs Sanchez, Mr Chappell's sister, so as I've told it to you she comes in on the trip the day before Australia Day to Bruny Island, she comes in on the lunch at - or pie at the yacht club, the discussions afterwards where going back down has never been mentioned, then later she comes in on the first phone call where it's for the first time said that Sue Neill-Fraser did go down there that night, then there's the second phone call, you know, a fortnight later where it's a different story yet again. Well that'll all come out through the one witness just detailing her involvement, so it's - I know it's hard, it's going to be hard for you to keep them all in order, but they're the - that's the sweep of it - to buy the yacht, to have the work done on the yacht, to have - you'll hear about the - the so called break-in that wasn't in Queensland. Then there's the trip down and you'll hear about - well going back to the work on the yacht done by Mr McKinnon, and Mr McKinnon also receives a call at the time that Sue Neill-Fraser was saying 'we've got a good committed relationship', receives a call, 'It's all over with Bob I haven't told the police and I'm not going to'. So we have the trip down with Stevenson, again, this entry, then we have the boat's here in Hobart and some - you'll hear of some electrical work done it here, including, of course, removal of an electrical panel by electricians. Then the events of the 26th of January as seen by Mrs Sanchez and as you've heard, it's our case, there is no reliable account of Sue Neill-Fraser's movements from about two o'clock when Mr Liaubon sees her heading out to Four Winds until the next day when she turns up following the police at, I think, eleven past seven - I should I have told you too that at five past seven she rang her mobile number and - which was the mobile that she'd left on the Four Winds and got no reply - a matter for you whether that's a circumstance that you think, that if you've got a particularly suspicion mind you might think that that's - that that was left in a position and that if it didn't work then it would prove that it was under water. Or you might think that if, having been so alarmed the night before, she rang - she would ring the next morning and get no answer she would try again before, at least in the six minutes before the police called - but these are circumstances for you to take into account - make of them what you will. And so we've got that - we've got those interviews, that statutory declaration, notes and so on, the constantly changing story as bits and pieces are offered. And of course, in the background, or when it comes - or the forensic evidence and the evidence of searches and so


on and so - it's a big hard case to keep on top of. A lot of the evidence fortunately will come on agreed facts but again they will probably come out in a rush and it's - you need to be able to maybe sit back and see where does this fit in in the story so I hope I've given you the linear part of the story that makes it easier to understand when we present the witnesses in a way that we can't make it so linear. Well that's a longer afternoon than I thought, thanks for your attention. If it please, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Ellis. Mr Gunson, should we leave your opening speech until tomorrow morning?


MR GUNSON SC: Not at all, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well what would you like to say?

MR GUNSON SC: Very little.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

<OPENING - MR GUNSON SC: And I'm saying very little, members of the jury, because I'm very much constrained by the provisions of the Criminal Code as to what I can say in opening to you. I'd like to be able to open the accused's case in the great detail that my learned friend, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has opened his case and respond to all of those things that he has laid before you, the Criminal Code doesn't permit me to do that. I'm limited basically to telling you some very basic matters such as those things that are not in dispute or which the accused is prepared to admit. I won't do that now because tomorrow or the day after you'll get a list of things that are agreed in this case; so in other words we're saying to the Crown, 'You don't have to prove these things, these are all various formal matters', so that will happen in the fullness of time and the issues that the accused contents are important to the defence case. Well let me say this to you immediately, the accused emphatically denies that she has murdered Mr Chappell. She says to you through me that there was no reason whatsoever why she would want to do that and she emphatically denies the allegations involving Mr Triffett. She says that she no way is responsible for his death, if indeed he is dead. As has been said to you by Mr Ellis this is a circumstantial case and there is no direct evidence of her involvement with the demise of Mr Chappell, if in fact he is dead, there is nothing that directly links her. You don't determine the case on the DPP's opening, that's not evidence it's merely an outline of this case, but bare in mind throughout there is an emphatic denial on her part of having committed the crime with which she is charged.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Gunson. Well gentlemen, is it still proposed that the jury go to inspect various points at nine thirty tomorrow morning - is that still proposed?


MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And is a bus or transport organised for them - has an officer of the Court attended to that?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, apparently so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well we need to discuss exactly what they're going to be shown after they've gone for the day. So ladies and gentlemen, I'll ask you to stand and make the affirmation that you made earlier where you promised not to talk to people other than each other and then I'll retire for a few minutes so that those who want to leave may leave, then I'll return to the bench and have a discussion with counsel about what you're going to be shown. You'll need to come back here at nine thirty in the morning and the Court will sit at that time and - just formally for a couple of minutes and then you'll be taken to transport to go and look at things at Sandy Bay. Yes, all right, administer the affirmation.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, nine thirty tomorrow then, thank you, ladies and gentlemen.


Table of Contents


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO ................................................................ 79

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:.......................................................... 89


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:............................................................... 96

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:........................................................ 100

<TONY FOX CALLED AND SWORN ...................................... 105

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:............................................................. 105


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ............................................................. 108

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ........................................................... 145


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ............................................................. 146

Exhibit List

#MFI - D- DISC RECEIVED BY MR STEVENSON FROM ACCUSED............................................................................. 163

EXHIBIT #P03 - BUNDLE OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY REDBURN .............................................................................. 79

EXHIBIT #P04 - CD, ELECTRONIC COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS BY REDBURN .............................................................................. 79

EXHIBIT #P05 - KNIFE ............................................................. 80

EXHIBIT #P06 - TORCH ............................................................ 81

EXHIBIT #P07 - FINGERPRINT LIFTS FOR 28TH........................ 87


EXHIBIT #P09 - PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY CONSTABLE BARNES (NOW WOODWARD) ................................................ 96

EXHIBIT #P10 - CD OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY CONSTABLE BARNES (NOW WOODWARD) ................................................ 97

EXHIBIT #P11- BUNDLE OF PHOTOS TAKEN ON 29/1/09 AND /3/09.................................................................................. 105

EXHIBIT #P12 - TWO CDs OF 29/1 AND 18/3/09 ...................... 105



EXHIBIT #P15 - HARD COPY PHOTOS FROM P14................... 164

EXHIBIT #P16 - PLUMBING DIAGRAM................................... 166

MFI - E - BOOK....................................................................... 166



HIS HONOUR: - yesterday the plan for this morning is that you'll be taken to Sandy Bay and shown a number of things. Now there are some formalities that we need to go through in relation to that. First of all two of the court staff will be going with you as your keepers and it's their job to make sure that you don't talk to other people and other people don't talk to you, and each of them needs to make an oath or affirmation, so we'll do that now.


HIS HONOUR: Now each side is entitled to nominate a shewer to show things to the jury and Mr Ellis' clerk and Mr Gunson's junior counsel will be the shewers. They now need to be sworn in or affirmed. Do that, please.


HIS HONOUR: Now gentlemen, I'm wondering when I should reconvene the Court. It might be convenient not to interrupt for a morning break after we resume but to give the jury an opportunity when they get back to have a cup of tea or coffee. When do you think, Mr Gunson, eleven o'clock?

MR GUNSON SC: I would've thought eleven o'clock would be sensible, your Honour, I think it'll take at least an hour from now to get down there and do the things and get back.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. You agree with that, Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour -



MR GUNSON SC: - the Crown have kindly made a list for the jurors of each of the things they have to see - it conforms with the list we gave to your Honour, which is MFI-C.


MR GUNSON SC: It was thought by both sides that it would be best if the jury had a copy of the things to see.


MR GUNSON SC: Subject to your Honour's directions.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, they may, and I don't know whether it's proposed to show them the things in the list in the order in which they appear, but I think it would be far more efficient to - geographically to travel in a different order.

MR GUNSON SC: No, we take a different view, your Honour, we -

HIS HONOUR: Well if both sides agree, then -


HIS HONOUR: - it will be as both sides have agreed.


HIS HONOUR: All right. Well there's a logic to it to do with the sequence of events, is there?

MR GUNSON SC: There is indeed, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. All right. Well because you're leaving the Courtroom, ladies and gentlemen, you'll each need to make your affirmation where you promise not to talk to other people about the case. So I'll ask you to stand and - Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I'm sorry, it occurs to me, and I notice a couple of the jurors are conveniently folding them already, that might be useful for the jurors to take with them - they don't have to, of course, the aerial photographs, and it may give them some assistance when they are down there.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, I can recommend that at least some of you take the aerial photos, ladies and gentlemen. I did yesterday afternoon what you'll be doing today and it helped me. All right. Well I'll ask you to stand and make your affirmation and the Court will then adjourn until 11:00am.






<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:Would you please state your full name?....My full name is Melanie May Redburn, I'm a constable in Tasmania Police, currently attached to Forensic Services in Hobart. And where were you attached to on 27th January 2009?....Forensic Services Hobart. And what did you do on that day?...At about 10 am I was tasked to attend Marieville Esplanade in relation to a boat that was partially submerged at a mooring just off the Esplanade. And once you got to Marieville Esplanade, what did you do?...I spoke to attending police who indicated the boat in question. Then I spoke to Marine Police and accompanied them out on a tender to the boat, which was called Four Winds. I took with me a camera and fingerprint kit to examine the boat. And you took a number of photographs on the boat?....I did, yes. Can the witness please be shown these photographs please….Yes, these are the photographs that I took. If it please your Honour, I tender that bundle, and I may also tender a CD, an electronic copy of those photographs as previously mentioned.


EXHIBIT #P04 - CD, ELECTRONIC COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS BY REDBURN - TAKEN IN Thank you. May I ask Ms Oakes if she can bring those photographs up on the computer for the Constable. Great, now is that the first photograph that you took or one of - ……Yes. Yeah, of a series of photographs that I took from the marine boat as it was circling Four Winds. Thank you. And if you can go to the next one……Certainly. This photograph just shows a view of the stern of the vessel. Thank you……The next photograph here is obviously from the bow of the boat once on board. You can see the marine vessel there to the left, looking back towards the wheelhouse.


Thank you…….Would you like me to continue? Yes, if you could go to the next one, thank you……Okay. From the - from a slightly different angle but looking towards the same view of the vessel, closer to the mast there, the centre mast, looking back towards the stern of the boat. This is a view from the stern looking towards the external wheel and the mast there towards the wheelhouse, which you can see just past the mast where there's an open space. Thank you…….Okay. This is a view from the opposite direction, that open space that I mentioned in the previous photo, looking back towards the mast and a configuration of ropes tied to the mast. This one looking back towards the opening hatch of the wheelhouse and you can see a generator there on the deck in the centre of the photograph. This view is inside the wheelhouse, it's a two level, I guess, once you get inside the boat. This is from the actual - the wheelhouse area looking back outside of that hatch in the previous photograph. Thank you…….Again looking at slightly closer to the hatch, looking at that view showing various areas to the left of the opening. This view here is a view from that hatch area looking down inside the wheelhouse at a number of areas inside the boat, you can see also the next level down. As I said, it was in two levels, the next level down is into the saloon, where you can see the foot there of one of the marine police further in the distance of the photograph. And what happened to that knife that's on the floor there?……That knife I - during the course of my examination I collected that knife. Have a look at this item please?…….Yes, that's the knife that I collected at - at that time. Thank you. I tender that, thank you.


MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): If you could just - perhaps if you just hold that up so the jury can see what it looks like? Thank you, constable.

HIS HONOUR: You'll have all of the exhibits in the jury room at the end of the trial, ladies and gentlemen, so you'll be able to have another look at that knife then.


MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): Can you - can I ask you one more question; how - can you tell the jury how sharp knife is?…….The knife isn't blunt it's quite a sharp knife. I don't think I'd want to run my finger along the edge of the blade, that's for sure. Thank you. …….Yeah, it's a carving style knife. Thank you. Now -…….Continue? - can I take you back to the photographs?…….Yes. Okay. This view is - is just slightly backwards from the previous view showing other items inside the wheelhouse and gives a bigger overview of that area. Thank you. …….This next photograph is a closer view of a torch which can be seen in the previous photograph - would you like me to go back to the previous one to indicate where this torch is - sorry? Yes, thank you, that would be great.…….Okay. In that photograph there you can see that the torch - and I can point - there you go is there, and that was insitu and you can see the knife on the floor there. There are also some steps. These steps are portable three step wooden stairs that would have ordinarily been placed just inside the opening hatch to the wheelhouse, that's where I found them. Here's a closer view of the torch. On the back of the torch in this area I could see some reddish stains and in several other areas across the torch in a spatter type pattern. And what happened to that torch?……I collected the torch. Thank you. And that's the torch you collected?……And that's the torch that I collected. Thank you, your Honour, tender that.


WITNESS: Okay, here is a closer or - sorry, a view of the torch from another angle and the reddish stains can be seen there that I described earlier. Another closer view of the torch with the staining prior to collection. It's a closer view of the knife, as indicated earlier the knife that I held up, on the floor of the wheelhouse. This


is a view of the stairs that I mentioned in the previous photo that were just inside the wheelhouse that would have ordinarily been used to step down into the wheelhouse but were in situ as I found them when I entered the wheelhouse personally. This is a view of the bottom step, if we're counting obviously there are three steps, the bottom step I could see some further red staining and that's a view of that. I took a swab of that staining for a sample. Thank you…….The next one is the second step or the middle step and again I took a further swab of that staining. This view here is of the wheel itself, you can see the key in the ignition off to the right of the wheel and the pair of men's spectacles there. This view here is from the wheelhouse beside the wheel looking down into the saloon and you can see several portions of carpet and flooring in a sort of a dishevelled appearance on the floor and several tools lying on the floor also. That door there is a door to the engine compartment, so it's a considerable step down again. Stairs here are similar to the stairs found in the wheelhouse that you would ordinarily step down to get into the saloon area. This view here is from the saloon or that step down looking back up towards the wheelhouse. This area here is a casing beside the wheelhouse, adjoining the wheelhouse and the saloon area. This cap here is a cover for a - just a compartment, an empty compartment, and you can see the wheel in the top there just poking out to get perspective. I detected some staining on this - further red staining in this area here and including the plastic cap. This view here shows - and you can see just some reddish staining in these areas indicating something that wasn't normally part of the varnish of the actual casing itself that was sitting on top of the surface. This is a closer view of that staining and it was spread out across the brown casing of the wheelhouse. This view here is another view of that staining in different areas, so just closer showing the size of the stains. You can see the scale off to the right. There is also a small stain on the - on that plastic cover. It's in the - this photographs is in the same orientation of what you saw the overview of the casing, so it's at the bottom of that plastic cover. And there's a closer view of that as well, showing the shape. Further staining, closer, you can see the wheel actually there - so again this is on the left hand side, showing further stains. This is a larger stain - the largest of all of the stains that were there, and it was in this vicinity. The next view is on the other side of that casing, is a control panel. I spoke to Constable Chris Lawler of Marine police, who obviously indicated that that was the panel that controlled functions of the boat, so I took some photographs of how it was in situ. Again, showing the position on the switches of that control panel. And further switches of the control panel. And the same again. This view here is in the saloon looking towards the bow of


the boat. You can see on the left hand side is a bench-type area with some cushioning. There are the steps and forward of that is a toilet area in this portion here and another room off there, and obviously the compartment or forward bedroom if you like, or - it was used as a storage area by the looks of it - at the bow of the boat. So that's right at the bow. This is a closer view of some black tape - hundred mile an hour tape, if you like - or plastic tape and a smoking tin, some serrated scissors and a smoking pipe. In later examinations of the vessel I collected these items, but at this stage I just took some photographs. This is a view of the - it would be the starboard side or the right side of the saloon, showing - there's the steps that were in the previous view. Off to the right is the galley or the kitchen of the boat. From the other side, so from the starboard looking to the portside is showing that lounge area and the scissors and the smoking pipe etcetera. And you indicated before that there was a toilet -…….Yes, and the toilet door can be seen in this photograph just there, and it's closed there. Okay. Looking again at the starboard side and some other areas you can see in this photo also that there's a rope. That rope there is actually dangling from a - a hatch, an external hatch in the ceiling, of which there are several hatches in the ceiling, but that one was actually hanging through there. And there's - that's where the toilet door would be, and obviously the front of the boat there. Another view down that hallway, that section of the carpet and the hatch for it - are there on the floor, and a plunger type thing on the floor there. So the toilet door was to the left. That's showing what's on the other side opposite the toilet door was a bedroom type compartment and just looking through the door. Okay. This photograph is in that forward compartment, as I said, it appeared to be used as a sort of storage area, although it had bedding in it, with a portion of the floor removed. You can see that there is the bottom of the boat, if you like, and also that it was full of water. The toilet door is here. This is just showing that area higher up to show the contents of it, and you can see another hatch that leads to the external part of the boat, at the top of the boat. This is a view from outside of the - that bedroom door and the toilet door looking back towards the saloon and the wheelhouse that you can see further into the photograph. So just looking back from that view. This is a view of the outside of the toilet door in the forward part of the boat. Once opening the door this is a view of the toilet area and the adjoining bench and sink also. This is a view of the floor below the toilet. You can see a shower type bay there. Alongside the left hand side of the toilet I observed a pipe that had been cut, there was water still running from that pipe. This photo shows a view of the water continuously flowing from that pipe. The other section to the


right was still joined to the toilet area. Okay, as mentioned below the wheelhouse and that hatch that was open in the previous photo shows the engine compartment area. Two other areas of note in this photo are the galley and also to the right of that is a laundry area which had a lot of tools and other - just stuff in it. Okay, this is a view of the laundry area. As you can see it's quite jumbled. This is a view of the galley looking towards the stern or the rear of the boat and other compartments that were - were associated with it, bedrooms. Here is a cut away section of the wall which leads into the wheelhouse and in this photo you can see some latex gloves, etcetera, sitting on the stove - or the drainer of the sink I should say. This is a view of a compartment just past the galley, I'll just show you, in this photo here is that blue round ball, you can see a section of the floor removed, it's a closer view of it. This is a view of a bedroom off to the right past the galley towards the stern of the boat, there's some bedding there. This is probably the tidiest bedroom of them all and appeared to be more recently used, so - okay. That's a view further on towards the stern showing the bucket, that was the blue ball type thing that was in the photo before, bedroom off to there, further storage areas beyond that door. And this is a view beyond that door right at the stern of the boat. As you can see there it's sort of bed area. This is a view from Four Winds looking back towards Marieville Esplanade and the Sandy Bay Rowing Club from the boat on its mooring. So after you were on the Four Winds -…….Yep. - you then went back to the shore?……Yes, I was then taken back to shore and it was indicated to me by attending police that this Quicksilver tender was - was related to Four Winds, that it was normally used to go out to the boat. I took a photograph of it as it was sitting on the rocks just near the car park area outside the Sandy Bay Rowing Club. Thank you…….This is a further view of the boat looking back towards the shore, you can see that that's where the actual beach area is, the car park and the rowing club is off to that area there, to the left. Now you attended the Four Winds again on the 3rd February, is that right?……On the 3rd February, yes. Yes, sorry, the 3rd February, and you took some more photos?……I did, I attended with forensic scientist, Deb McHoul. She had conducted a previous examination that I hadn't been present for but indicated to me areas that she wished to have photographed for a record of her examination.


Thank you. If you can explain those photos for us……..Okay. The photographs here are inside the saloon area of couch and cushion. This was - this bench here was where that smoking pipe, etcetera, was and just the - I guess throw cushions that were around, or seat cushions. This is a closer view of one of those seat cushions showing some texta marks and a scale that she had placed on there earlier. This is a view of storage compartment that adjoins the galley, is to the right, and obviously the couch area to the left of it, showing, again further texta marks and scales, and indicated by Deb McHoul. Can you explain what the dust is that you can see in these photos?…….The dust is from fingerprint powder, and you can see it on the - on the walls and also the white powder on the - the wooden casing. So how would that come to be there?…….Using a brushing powder applying it to the surface - Police officers would have done that?…….That's correct, yes. Thank you. …….This is a view of the top hatch from the previous photo showing a closer view of the circle texta areas and scale, and a further view of the bottom half of that - that storage compartment. This is a view of the adjoining couch area with the - the cushions obviously replaced. You can see the texta marks on the - the top or the backs of the cushions and some further down on the right there. This is a closer view of the left hand back cushion. And this is a view of - of that storage compartment in a previous photograph looking back towards the - the galley area. This view here is actually of the flooring between the galley and the saloon and texta marks as indicated. This is another view of the same. And just a view of the galley area with that powdery substance over it, obviously used to detect latent fingerprints. This is a view inside the galley wall just on the other side of that storage casing that was previously there, just showing the positioning of a - a gas handle in the off position. Just a view of the laundry area again. This is a view of the toilet as seen in previous photographs where the pipe was cut and the toilet has been coated in fingerprint powder and texta marks are in the centre, those lines across the centre, and also the scale that's been applied. This is a view of the pipe, as seen in previous photos, on the left hand side of the toilet with some latex gloves that had been - not by myself - that had been applied to the


actual pipe itself, as I found it on my attendance on the 3rd. This is a view of the bow of the boat, or the front of the boat, and that storage compartment that had bedding, etcetera, in it. Sorry, I'll go back to that photograph. You can see on the wooden rail, if you like, a scale and adjoining it a texta mark there. This is a closer view of that area. That's the last one. Now you indicated that there was dust there from fingerprint lifts, did you take any fingerprints?……I did. On two occasions I took fingerprint lifts. My primary area of examination was the wheelhouse area, that's where I conducted the majority of my fingerprint examinations. On what date was the first occasion?……Okay, on the first occasion was the 28th, the day after I first attended. I, using a brush and powder, applied powder to several surfaces inside the wheelhouse and took a series of fingerprints. And when you say you took a series of fingerprints how do you physically do that?……Okay. Using like an adhesive sticker, if you like, once the latent fingerprint has been developed, the power adhering to the latent print or the moisture in the print, we apply sticky tape to it and simply lift off that impression. Once we do that we write identifying notes on the tabs of the fingerprint lifts and then record that in our notebooks. Okay. And so do you have the lifts there that you took on the 28th?……I do. On the 28th I took one fingerprint lift where I actually lifted it, the other one was a photograph of fingerprints in the wheel house area, actually like I've - indicate the photograph - to indicate where I took those. Thank you…..Firstly I took - I'll just move to the photograph so you can see it more clearly - okay, in this photograph here of the actual wheelhouse, the first fingerprints that I developed were in this area here - the fingers - the shape of the finger indicated that the movement came from a hand reaching over, fingers pointing down towards the floor - so in this type of position. The second print that I lifted on that day was from the two o'clock position on the actual wheel, where I was able to actually lift the fingerprint itself, using the adhesive, so - Thank you and what do you then do with those lifts?.....The lifts are then submitted to our fingerprint experts or our fingerprint section at Hobart police Forensic Services. And did you do that?....Yes.


Do you have the - did you create some sort of envelope for them to go in?......Yes, identifying notes are put on the lifts, but also the lifts are - an envelope is generated from our data base describing what those lifts actually are. And you put them in the envelope?...And we put them in the envelope and hand that to the experts at Forensic Services Fingerprint section. I tender that one for the 28th.


HIS HONOUR: Sorry - that's the fingerprint lift?


HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MR SHAPIRO: And you took some fingerprints also on 30th - is that right?....That's right. On 30th I did further examination of the wheelhouse. I took a series of eight fingerprint lifts from various items inside the wheelhouse. Would you like me to describe those areas? Thank you, if you can with that photograph?...Yep. In this photo I took - dusted several areas. The first fingerprint lift I took - or the first three I took, actually, were inside window -I called it window three, numbering - there's actually four windows and it's difficult to see in this photo. There are actually four windows across the top. That window there I numbered as window 3, I took a series of three fingerprints lifts from the inside of that window. I also took a fingerprint lift from a bowel that I dusted, which was this one here, it was empty, also a coffee cup on the floor and also there was a grey casing, it's just like an empty box or a casing off something, sitting on the top there near the hat. And although you can't see the left hand window in this photograph there was another window - another series of two windows on the sides, either side of the boat, there was also a lift taken from in there. And above this is a radio - series of radios and instrument panel just above there. There was also a fingerprint I detected and lifted from that instrument panel above the top there. And again you generated a - …..That's correct, yeah.


- an envelope and placed them in that envelope?……That's right. And those were handed to the fingerprint section. Thank you, I tender those.

EXHIBIT #P08 - SERIES OF EIGHT FINGERPRINT LIFTS - TAKEN IN And just in relation - you said earlier that you took two swabs from the stairs that you can see in that photograph what did you do with those swabs?……Okay, those swabs I - in order to take the swabs moistened the head of the swab with sterile water then I rubbed them on the surfaces respectively, I then aerated them and packaged them, labelled them, sealed them in a bag. I took these on the 27th kept them in my custody until the 28th and I took them to the Forensic Science Service Tasmania, our forensic analyst, for DNA analysis along with the knife and the torch. So I took them on the 28th to the laboratory. Thank you…..Yeah. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Yes, thank you. You said in your evidence that there was a rope that was coming from one of the hatches down into the saloon of the yacht, is that correct?……That's correct. I wonder if you could take us back through your series of photographs please and do we see the rope entering the hatch from the deck?…….Oh right, I'll just go back to the earlier photos - It might be fairly - …….- of the - Go back fairly on if you would please?…….Yes, yes. It might assist you if you look at photo 7 or photo 8, at least as we have them?…….Ah right. As I don't have the photograph numbers on here - Right. Well -…….Sorry, two, three - That's it, just go back - go back?…….That one? Yes, that one.…….Just there? Yes, now do you see the rope going into the hatchway - I wonder if the - it might assist you - the witness -…….No, I can't see it. Have a look at this because -…….Certainly. - this is a print of that photograph. First of all confirm, if you would please, that that is a copy of that photograph?…….That is a copy of the photograph, yeah. Now is that somewhat clearer than what -…….Yes. - we see on the screen and what you see on your computer screen?…….It is, yes. Right. …….Yeah. Now using that to assist you, do you see the rope going into the hatchway?…….It - it appears that the rope is entering that hatchway as well as a - another portion of the rope - the higher up - Yes.…….- reddish kind of coloured rope.


Now it might assist the jury if - do you have copies of those - if that photograph could be handed around to the jury at the moment so they can see it - it's somewhat difficult to see on the screen.…….Yeah. Not mine, rather the one the Court's got - thank you.…….Sorry.

HIS HONOUR: All right. So it's photo 7, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Photo 7 in the numbered ones we have, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. And you're wanting the jury to look -

MR GUNSON SC: I want the jury -

HIS HONOUR: - to the hatch - at the hatch to the left of the photo, which seems to have two ropes going from the vicinity of the mast to the corner of the hatch?

MR GUNSON SC: Indeed, your Honour. Now if you look at that photograph again, Constable, we see that the upper right, if I call it, is -

HIS HONOUR: Hang on. Hang on a minute, has she got one, have you got a photo 7?



HIS HONOUR: All right, good.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Got photo 7 there?……I have, yes. The rope appears to go up to a winch with a handle on it, doesn't it?……That's correct, yes. And the bottom rope, if I can call it, which is very hard to see against the white deck, -……..Yep. - appears to go across to that coil on the bottom, is that right?……That's what it appears, yes. Thank you. And the rope that was hanging into the cabin, did you closely examine the end of that?……No, I did not.

But it appeared to be somewhat frayed, did it not?……I honestly could not - could not tell you whether it was frayed -


Or cut?……- or cut because I didn't - didn't closely examine it because at the time there was no information provided to me that that was an area of interest. Right……Yep. Are you a yachting person?……No, I'm not. All right, well you won't get the next question……..No. I wonder if that photo could be handed back to me, please. Did you draw to anybody's attention the fact that a rope was coming from the winch on the mast into that hatch and hanging down into the saloon?……No. Right. Did anybody point it out to you, say one of the marine police for instance?……No, not at this - no. Right. Now - thank you. You said in respect to the torch - ……..Yes. - that you looked at it and it had what you described as a spatter type pattern on the torch?……Yes. Spatter has a specific meaning in forensic science, doesn't it?……It does. And can you tell the jury what a spatter means when we are talking from a forensic science point of view?……A spatter pattern associated with a blood - either a bloodied object, being - providing movement and actually impacting a surface. Mhm……Yep. Would you agree with this as being the standard definition. It's a pattern which exhibits directionally -…….Yeah. - comparing in force and are associated with a source of, say, blood - …….Yeah. - being subjected to external forces in addition to gravity and friction?…….Yes, that sounds good. That's the standard definition, isn't it?…….Yes.


Now I wonder if you would take up that exhibit please, the torch - could that be passed to the witness - and what you saw on there was some unusual substance -…….Yes. - you thought it might be blood - is that a fair comment?…….Yes, that's correct. And I wonder if you could tell his Honour and the jury just how many spots of this substance appear on that torch?…….As it stands now it's been examined - Mm hm. …….- it's obviously been sampled. Yes.…….It doesn't actually show the red stains as I first detected it. Right. …….So it's been examined by forensic scientists, I'm assuming. And you would suggest, I suppose, they have muddied the waters somewhat for you?…….Well the samples have been removed, yes. Right. Okay. Now could I just take you please back to the photograph of the torch?…….Certainly. And I have these at least noted as 17, 18 and 19 in my photographs, but again, would you find it easier to look at the colour print rather than looking at the screen?…….I have the photos here in front of me, I have 17 - and 19?…….18 and 19, yes. Right. Now -…….But I can indicate those on the screen as well. All right. Now there are some white-ish coloured marking on that torch, what's that - in the photographs?…….In the photographs, on the handle area are you - Yeah.…….- saying? Yes.…….Yes, it appears to be dried paint or something similar. Right. And that was -…….Yeah. - in the situation you found it on the boat?…….That's correct, yes.


All right. Did anybody specifically ask you to photograph that torch?…….Not specifically, no. Thank you. Would you just look - using your photographs - …….Yes. - try and tell me how many of these reddish coloured markings are on those - on that torch?…….On that torch? Mm.…….If you'd like me to indicate with the mouse for the - for the jury's - Yes.…….- benefit; there were markings here on the back, there - Now just - if you just describe it please because there will be a transcript and it may be necessary in the fullness of time for other people to read this transcript……Okay, all right. I observed reddish stains which I believed to be blood on the rear of the torch just below the - on the rear of the handle in the centre, below that centre area there, also at the rear of the torch, I guess where the battery compartment would be, where it would sit, the heavier part, on this ledge type area there was the reddish stain sitting on that ledge also underneath and in a sort of a watery, if you like, pattern just below that and then at the base of the torch there were several other small spots of the reddish stain there. Thank you. Would it be fair to say this? That this is not in forensic terms a true spatter distribution but rather isolated droplets?……There were several droplets on the - on the torch, they were distributed in - it appeared in this - these type of areas in the centre. It appeared that at some stage, because the boat was so damp and because it was watery, that the patterning, if you like, was somewhat diminished by - by it being watery. As far as directionality is concerned it doesn't necessarily need to show a tail of the direction because it depends on the angle of impact of the blood staining so there was in fact, I believe, a pattern because it was concentrated in a certain area - But you're not going to go to the wall and say it was definitely a spatter pattern are you?……It is consistent with other spatter patterns that I have seen before. I did - I must add that I did take this torch to Forensic Science Service Tasmania and examine it more closely with Chris McKenzie, the forensic scientist out there. Obviously on board a boat you don't have a lot of time to really - I wasn't prepared to handle the torch or disturb any patterning or any stains on the torch at the time so later on I looked at it.


Can I ask you this, when you saw the torch for the first time was it on this bench or had it been in water?……No, it was sitting on that bench. Was it wet?……The boat was - had condensation because it had been wet and it was a hot day, so it wasn't wet - the bench wasn't wet and the torch wasn't wet, no. You don't know whether it was sitting there and had been sitting there, for instance, overnight or whether one of the earlier visitors to the boat may have picked it up and put it there?……I can't say when it was put there. You've no idea, have you? No……Well I can't say. Yes, thank you for that. Just bear with me. You conducted the fingerprint search in the wheelhouse?……Yep. Was it your decision to do that or somebody directed you to do that?……No, it was my decision to do that as further examination needed to be done. And you didn't do any fingerprint examinations in the saloon or in any of the bedrooms or anywhere else on the boat?……No, I was accompanied by other police who conducted those examinations. Thank you. So you confined yourself to the wheelhouse?……That's correct. And only parts of the wheelhouse? If I put it to you this way, - ……..No, I - - you didn't do the entire - every surface of the wheelhouse, did you?……I did it sequentially and areas that I believe from past experience of being a crime scene examiner that were suitable for fingerprinting, so yes, I did, although these photographs don't necessarily show the end result of the fingerprinting because these were taken prior to the full examination which was conducted on theth. Would it be fair -…….That was -


Go on…….There was a considerable amount of powder being used and examined areas of interest, yes. You would normally look for an area that has a suitable surface for fingerprints?……That's right. Correct?……Yes. And there are areas that you know from experience that are unsuitable for fingerprints to remain?……Well that are unsuitable to be used using powder and a brush for, yes. Yes, but there are other more advanced methods which you can use, - …….That's right. - but not with doing what you were doing?……At the time, no. Right. And the sort of areas you were looking for, I suggest, are the areas which people would logically touch or handle in the normal use of the boat, such as the steering wheel?……That's correct. You said, for instance, a coffee cup - a logical choice to look for, isn't it?....Yes. And similar items…Yes. And glass, for instance, windows and areas like window ledges and - …Smooth - smooth flat surfaces are better - Yes….And because I can't tell how the person has handled it, the entire area is examined. All right. Thank you for that. Yes, I have no further questions of the witness, your Honour.





<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:Would you please state your full name?....My full name is Heidi Louise Woodhead. And did you have a previous name recently?.....Yes, as of March this year - or previous to March this year I was Heidi Louise Barnes. Thankyou. And what's your rank?.....My rank is Constable, Tasmania police Service. And where as you stationed?....I'm currently stationed at Forensic Services. And as of 27th January 2009, where were you stationed?....Forensic Services. Thank you. Now on that day, what did you do in the afternoon or the evening?....At approximately five fifty pm I attended the Four Winds yacht, which was on Constitution Dock, and I conducted a forensic examination of the boat. Okay. And you took a series of photographs?…….Yes, I did. Thank you. If you could be shown these photographs? I should have said, you also took some photographs on the 11th of February, is that right?…….Yes. And you took some photographs on the 13th of February and all of the photographs that you - all of the photographs you have there are photographs that you've taken, is that right?…….Yes, that's correct.

HIS HONOUR: On those three days?

WITNESS: On those three days.


MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): Thank you. I tender those, and I also tender the CD to go with them and I would ask that that be displayed on the computer, if it please?




MR SHAPIRO: Thank you. Now what's that photograph?……Okay, this is a photograph taken on the Four Winds yacht looking - on the deck looking towards the front. Thank you. And you did tell us where the yacht is but perhaps if you just tell us again?……Yeah, it was located, I think it's Constitution Dock, and it's just in front of Muirs. Thank you. And the next photo?……The next photo is another view on the deck of the boat looking towards the back of it. Thank you. And the next photograph, thank you……Okay then, this photograph is a close up of some items on the deck towards the front of the boat and there's two cut ropes and a winch handle which is this side just here. Thank you. And the next?……Okay, that's a close up of one of the ends of one of the cut ropes on the deck. And this is a photograph of a close up of the cut end of the other rope that was on the deck. This photograph shows the cabin area looking at the wheelhouse of the yacht. And the next one……Okay, this photo, which isn't the right way up, that's a photograph of ropes and the rope housing was this part here, which is on top of the wheelhouse just next to the entrance down into the cabins. Well perhaps if you go back - …….So if I go back to the previous one - Yes.…….- it's this area here, it's a close up of this area here. Okay. And this is another close up of that same area but this time taken from the entrance down into the wheelhouse and it's looking out over the housing for the rope. And -…….Now particularly one of the reasons I took this photograph was to show the locations of a couple of marks on the wood; one was going across here and the other one was going across here, and the following photographs showed close ups of those areas. So this photograph is a close up of one of the marks that I just pointed out on the wood on top of the wheelhouse.


Thank you. …….And this is the mark here, that's the one I'm referring to. And this is a close up of the other mark, which was further along - whoops - hang on - oh well are we finished with that - yeah, so it's just a close up of the mark on the wood that I could see. Oh this is a photograph taken inside the wheelhouse and it's looking out to - oh that's the entrance up to the deck. Thank you. …….Ah so this is a close up of the housing for an EPIRB - and I'll just go back to the previous photograph to show this is the housing of it here, okay, so it's just a close up - that's a close up of the housing for the EPIRB without the EPIRB in it. And this is a close up of a little piece of plastic, which I believe is from the EPIRB housing, and that's on the floor of the watch - the wheelhouse. This photograph shows just the main cabin area and living room type area, and that's looking - oh hang on, sorry - okay, so that's looking from - as you're coming down from the wheelhouse and then straight ahead, so it's looking towards the front of the boat. Okay this shows a close up of some of the floor in that area which - showing the area where the wood - wooden panels on the floor have been removed or are absent, and just here, that is a screw driver we've located underneath the flooring. This photograph shows a close-up of screws on the floor which has obviously been unscrewed and just lying on the top of the flooring. Can you just - if you go back to the previous photograph, can you show us where that is?....Yep. Okay so that - this area down here - that's where the close-up - the next picture is the close-up of the screws that are on the floor - just there. This photograph is a close up of the screwdriver which was located underneath the floor that I pointed out earlier. I think we're jumping ahead in time here….Yep When was this photograph taken?.....Okay so this is one of the series of photographs I took on the 11th February and that was just at Forensic Services at Hobart in the office, so this is a photograph of a red jacket. It's just the front of the jacket. This next photograph shows the back of the jacket and this is upside down, but it is a close up of the tag inside the jacket. And that's another close up of the tag of the - one of the tags inside the jacket. And when were these photos taken?....Okay, so this next set of photographs is the ones that I took on 13th February at the request of Detective Sinnitt and the purpose for taking these photographs was a reconstruction of rope from the housing on top of the wheelhouse going down into the cabin. So this photograph shows the top - from


the top of the wheelhouse and shows the rope wound around that winch and going into the wheelhouse. Can you - there were some photographs before of some marks on some wood, can you see in that photograph where that is?……Yeah, the marks on the wood from the pre - the photograph that I took on the 27th, the piece of wood is this one along here, so - I don't know where exactly in this photograph, but the marks were along that piece there. Thank you…….Okay, so this is just another photograph of that same area taken from a different perspective, so this is just looking straight down like a bird's eye view and it shows the rope wound around the winch, going across that piece of wood and down into the wheelhouse. Okay, and this is another photograph taken from a different perspective again, the same thing, rope around the winch, across the top of the wheelhouse and going down into the cabin. Okay, and this photograph shows the same thing and a closer view again looking down into the cabin, so that rope goes right down to the floor. And this is a view looking from inside the cabin back out, showing how far it went down. Who's that person, just so we know?……That is Detective Conroy. Thank you……..Okay, so this is another closer view looking from the cabin out, showing the rope going down through the wheelhouse and down into the cabin. All right, and this photograph shows the floor of that - the cabin with the flooring and carpet replaced and it's showing this area here which has absent squares of carpet, they couldn't be located. Thank you, Constable. Yes, I submit the witness, thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Thank you. When you first went on the yacht at Constitution Dock on the 27th January you took some photographs that you've just discussed a moment ago with the marks on the woodwork…..Yes. Did somebody direct you to take those photographs or did you do them of your own volition?……I did them of - I think I did them of my own volition. Right. What drew your attention to those marks?……Um, well - By all means go back to the photographs if you'd like to…..Yeah, okay, well I'm just looking - Take your time……Right, so this is the first close up. Well we were just examining the area, the boat and the area - You say 'we' who's we?……Oh, myself and there were detectives present as well. Who was present?……Detective Sinnitt and I can't - I'm not sure who else. All right. You were examining it?……Yes. And - ……And noticed these marks on the wood and small fibres as well which I collected and photographed in close up. Now where were the small fibres?……Okay, I'll go to the next photo. The close ups - okay, so on this photograph here you can - Which one are we looking at - ……Okay, this is number -


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Twelve?……Yes, number - photograph number 12. Yes…..So the mark is across the piece of wood just there - Yes, a mark…..And there's some very faint green looking areas which were actually fibres of some sort. Right. And you collected those did you?……Yes, I did. And what did you do with them?…….I packaged them, sealed them, and put them in the forensic exhibit store.


Yes.…….With requests for further examination at the laboratory. Right. And that wasn't part of your role, your role was merely to collect them and pass them on?…….Just to collect them and put them into the lab. Right. And presumably you thought that the marks were caused by a rope rubbing over the wood, is that a fair comment?…….Yes. It was certainly consistent with that, wasn't it?…….I thought it looked consistent with that, yeah. Mm. And the marks appeared to you to be reasonably fresh?…….Well I would say so because of the weathered appearance of the wood, which you can see in this close up. Mm.…….And then the absence of those, you know, those weathered bits of wood - To put it another way -…….- along there. - the piece of wood didn't appear to have been well maintained for some time and showed clear signs of weathering?…….Yes. And you formed the opinion that a rope or something similar had been dragged across the piece of wood creating the mark or marks that you saw?…….Yes. And how many marks all together were there, there were two, weren't there?…….There were two. Yes. Separated by what distance?…….I didn't measure it - Roughly?…….- but it would have been roughly, I think it would have been roughly twenty to thirty centimetres apart. And basically -…….So there's one here - Yes.…….- and I've put arrows on the actual photograph. Yes, I've seen those.…….Oh no - okay, so yeah.


(indistinct word) do you have a copy of the -…….Yeah, so there's one here, and there's - ooh I've lost the mouse - here. So that actually - on second thought, it's probably about twenty centimetres - Right. Now -…….- between them roughly. - I don't know how easy that is for the jury to see but I would like the jury to be given the photographs just so they can have a look at them and then they can be returned, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: Which photos?

MR GUNSON SC: Eleven, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Eleven - yes.

WITNESS: And - well the close ups as well, twelve and thirteen.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Yes. No, I just - just want eleven at this stage.…….Just eleven. And presumably - just excuse me, would you? Does that have the arrows on it?


MR GUNSON SC: Yes, thank you very much, just pass that along, would you?


MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Thank you. Now on the 13th February, I think it was, Detective Sinnitt requested you to go and make some - take some photographs of a reconstructed scene with ropes places in situ, is that right?……Yes. Were you given any information at all about how that - why that scene was being reconstructed, just tell me yes or no?……No. Right. Had it been reconstructed by the time you got there or was it reconstructed in your presence?……I think it was already done. Right. You think but you're not sure?…….I'm not entirely sure, but I certainly don't remember seeing it being set up. Right. But there's quite an elaborate system of ropes going from the deck into the - through the wheelhouse and then down into the saloon of the yacht, isn't there?…….Oh I don't know.


Well perhaps 'elaborate' is an exaggeration but - a bit of a hyperbole, but in any event, we've got the ropes running from the winch down through the pilot house into the cabin - main cabin?…….Yes. Right. And did you ask any questions about why it had been set up like that - just tell me 'yes' or 'no'?…….No, I didn't. Thank you. You just did what you were told?…….Yes. Yes, thank you. But you remember it was Detective Sinnitt who was responsible for it?…….He made the request. Yes, thank you. And you've told us about the fibre, was there only one fibre found in one of the marks?…….No, there were fibres at both - In both marks?…….Oh, yeah, I think so. No, just please, if you'd check - take your time?…….Can I check - no - I could check my notebook. Well that would be useful if you would - do you have it there?…….Yes, I do. Okay, so no, I only collected the fibres at that one - in photograph number 12, where they're visible on the photograph. The other - the other mark - well it's got very small fibres - actually - yeah - yeah, no it was definitely the ones from photograph number 12. Right. And your notes - …….Because there was more there. Right. Do your notes confirm that you only took one sample of fibres from that wood?…….Yes. Thank you. Yes, I have no further questions, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: No, nothing - no re-examination, thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, constable, you're free to go.

WITNESS: Thank you.



P-105 T. FOX

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Please state your full name?……My full name is Tony Fox, I'm a constable in the Tasmania Police Force stationed at Forensic Services Hobart as a crime scene examiner and I've been there since 1997. Thank you. Now if I can take you to the 29th January 2009 did you take some photos on that day?……I did, at Margaret Street and Marieville Esplanade area. If you can have a look at these photos. Are those the photos that you took at those two locations?……That's right. That's the - the 29th was the one at Maning Reserve off Sandy Bay Road. Okay……That's beginning from that photograph. And those photographs which were taken on a different date, the 18th of the 3rd, they were Margaret Street and Marieville Street area. Thank you. I tender those -

HIS HONOUR: So you're tendering all the photos?

MR SHAPIRO: As one bundle, thank you, your Honour.



MR SHAPIRO: And there's two CDs that contain together the photographs - if I can tender those two CDs.

HIS HONOUR: Mark them as one exhibit.

EXHIBIT #P12 - TWO CDs OF 29/1 AND 18/3/09 - TAKEN IN

MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): What's that a photo of?……It shows the shoreline looking north towards the Casino obviously, and that's Marieville Esplanade on the side, Sandy Bay Road is to the left and the cone indicates the position where a EPIRB was located by the finder. Can you use the mouse to show the jury where the cone is, it's just - or you can use the mouse on the computer there perhaps……Oh sorry. That's all right.

P-106 T. FOX

HIS HONOUR: Can we rotate that photograph anticlockwise rather than all looking at it on its side?

MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): That's it there, thank you…….That's it there, number 1. And if you can go to the next photograph……And that's the actual epirb that was shown to me on that day and as being found in the position as indicated by cone number 1. Thank you. And the next photo?……That's just a closer up view showing the actual numbering, serial numbers and such on the actual epirb itself. Thank you, Constable. And if we can go to the next CD. Thank you. Now that's that photo of?……It shows the front of 2 Margaret Street with Marieville Esplanade on the right hand side of the image. And the next photo?……It shows a continuation of a view, so the left hand side of the image here is a brickwork to number 2 then Margaret Street, Marieville Esplanade there, and the Derwent River in the background. So the previous photo you took is just to the left of - …..It's a continuation. Thank you. And the next photo, thanks?……Again is a continuation of that image. It continues panning to the right along Marieville Esplanade again from Margaret Street and you can see the Derwent Sailing Squadron area behind the trees to the right hand side of the telegraph pole, and the entranceway to the Derwent Sailing Squadron is approximately there, in that vicinity there, the driveway. Now the next, thank you…..This is a view from - towards the shoreline and looking back towards the Derwent Sailing Squadron area there and the crane area which was the area of interest indicated to me by Detective Sinnitt. Thank you. A continuation of that view panning again to the right and Margaret Street would be behind this main building here off the street there.

P-107 T. FOX

And the next one?……And the next view is just showing the crane which has been seen in the previous photograph and then the Derwent River in the background. Thank you, Constable, is that the last photo, I think it is……I believe it is, yes. Thank you. Yes, I submit the witness.



HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, constable, you're free to go.



MR ELLIS SC: I call Timothy Chappell please, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: Volume 6 page 11 at 101, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: And supplementary - sorry, there was just a supplementary proof, which isn't in the volume



<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Mr Chappell, you are Timothy Edward Chappell?…….Yes. You live in South Hobart?…….That's right. You're a procedure engineer in the State Service?…….That's right. And who was your father?…….Bob Chappell. And his full name was Robert Adrian Chappell?…….That's correct. Do you know his date of birth?…….I believe it's the 2nd of December '43, I think. Thank you. Did he and your mother separate when you were small?…….Yes, I think it was the - yes. About how old were you?…….I think about seven or eight years old - yeah. Do you have siblings?…….Yeah, two sisters. What are their names?…….Kate and Claire. After your parents separated who did you live with at home?……Yeah, we lived with our mother after that, but we had time with our father. Every second weekend was the regular arrangement. 9 And in your teenage years you lived with him rather than your mother, is that right?……That's correct, yeah, when I started high school I -


I don't mean rather than, but you lived with him?……Yeah, that's correct, yep. And do you remember when you moved out of home?……It was I think, third year of university. Do you mean a year, are you asking for? How old were you?……I was twenty two or twenty three. Mhm. Had your father met someone else by then?……Yes, it was about the same time as he met Sue, or fairly soon after he met Sue. That's Sue Neill-Fraser, the accused in this case?……That's correct. And did she move into the home?……Yes, I mean coincidentally it was about the same time that I moved out. But not as a result of you moving -……..No it wasn't, no. Did you get on well with her?……Yes. How would you describe your father's - your father's personality and temperament?……He was an introverted sort of person, he was fairly quiet. He could be grumpy and prickly quite often. Yep…….But he was never an aggressive or outwardly sort of angry person, very quiet and introverted. Have you ever known him to show any physical aggression?……Never. And what was his work?……A medical physicist. He spent most - virtually his entire career at the Royal Hobart Hospital. Do you understand what a medical physicist does?……Vaguely. What's your vague understanding?……He was in charge there looking after the equipment, the radiation equipment for cancer treatment. I believe he was involved in some training of radiologists and those sorts of things, but primarily it was physics, radiation physics, and looking after the equipment. Right. Towards the end of 2008, did you have discussion with him in which his plans for the future were mentioned?…….Sorry, end of 8 -


Yes.…….You said? Or early 2009?…….Yeah, I mean that's - yes, we did have discussions. Right. And what did you understand his plans to be around that time?…….Well he was - he was planning to retire at some stage but he wasn't quite sure exactly when that would be, it was - it was imminent for quite a few years. Yes.…….And it was very much a plan to retire and buy a boat with Sue. Yeah. The plan was told you, obviously, was the style of boat told to you?…….Oh yes, we talked a lot about what they might buy. Yeah. Do you sail yourself?…….No, I mean dad and sailed dinghies but never large boats. And what was the - what was the talk about - what was the plan in terms of a boat?…….It started off, I think, very - very modest, I think, they - they were both looking for something initially quite small. Yeah.…….Initially I think the budget was well under a hundred thousand and they were looking at a - maybe a yacht of thirty to forty feet. Did your father have in his plan the intention to become a high seas sailor, to go far -…….No, no never. He - dad was very much, I think, had a - I suppose a retirement dream of really just sailing around the channel here, Bruny Island, you know, possibly a bit further a field once - once he got his confidence up, but you know, the immediate plan was really for - it was very modest, not that ambitious. Yes. Now your father disappeared on Australia Day 2009?…….Yes. Have you had any sign at all that he is alive?…….No. Do you believe him to be alive?…….No.


At the time of his disappearance can you tell us what his plans as told to you in respect to retirement?…….Yeah, he'd just revisited his plans, this was during the global financial crisis, and he was intending to work for another, I think for a couple of reasons; his superannuation had dropped significantly at that time but I think probably more pressing was his desire to finish his work. He'd just commissioned a major piece of equipment at the hospital - Yes…….- and he hadn't written up the manuals for it and he felt he was the only person who could do that and that if it wasn't - if he didn't do it, you know, it would not be done properly and he had a - he felt an obligation to finish that work. He told me it would be another year. And was he unhappy about that or in any way -…….No, actually surprisingly not, he actually seemed very comfortable with this, it was the last big thing of his career and I think he wanted to finish it. Right. Now you mentioned - sorry, to hop you around, you mentioned that the plan as you understand it was to buy a yacht around thirty to forty feet. As you know, the yacht subsequently purchased was considerably larger. When did you find that out?……Well after they purchased the yacht Dad and Sue both came back for a couple of months, but I think before they went up to make the final preparation for bringing the yacht back - I think when they arrived back after this trip up to Queensland they had photographs and the original advertisement from the paper and that was when they showed me it and the first thing I saw was fifty four foot, and I was surprised. Right. Who seemed to be driving it of the two, if either of them?……I think the original concept was - was mutual. Yes……..I believe that Sue had more energy in the project and that - I believe that she had a desire for a - the motivation for probably a larger and better vessel. Rather than your father?……Yeah, I think dad's - dad's plans I think were probably more modest, like I said, along the original lines. Yes. Well the boat arrived in Hobart just after Christmas, I think, after or before, do you recall?……Almost immediately before, I think it was Christmas Eve, yep. And did you go out on it with others?……Yes. Can you remember how many times you went out on it?……I was on the boat twice.


Right. Do you remember the occasions?……Yes. What were they?……The first time was on, I think it was Boxing Day, but the boat was on the mooring off Marieville and we went out in the dinghy and we didn't go anywhere - we stayed on the mooring. We had a couple of glasses of wine and looked about the boat and that was it. Who went out on that occasion do you remember?……Yeah, I think it was - it was just immediate family. It was myself and my wife and our children. How many trips in the dinghy did it take?……Two or three. Two or three…..Because there was also my sister, my mother in law, Emma and Sarah, Sue's daughters, I think their husbands and a child, there were a number of people. Right. Who operated the dinghy?……My father, that day. Have any difficulty in that?……No, no. I mean there was a source of some tension and there were a couple of issues with the outboard and things but dad was quite capable in a dinghy. Right. What about boarding it and getting off the vessel into the dinghy?……He was quite capable of that. Thank you. And the other occasion besides Boxing Day that was - …..Yeah, the other occasion was two or three weeks later. The boat had been brought across to the marina for some work, I can't remember what work, and so we simply walked down through the marina and found - located the boat, and again it was just a social occasion, a couple of drinks and the kids have a play on the boat and off we went. Again out in the - out to it in the dinghy?……No. How did you get - I'm sorry, I was looking for something else?……It was on - at the marina. At the marina, thank you…..Yeah. Now on those occasions did you detect - I'm sorry, not detect, what was the relationship as you saw it between Ms Neill-Fraser and your father?……What was the relationship?


Was anything being said about the boat in particular?……At the time? Yeah…..There was quite a lot of tension between them I believe. I felt a bit uncomfortable on the boat because of the tension between them. Right. And how was that intention expressed - or -…….A bit of - a few sort of snipey type words and - it wasn't an open argument or anything, it was just a little bit uncomfortable, there was obviously friction between them. You know, dad - dad goes about these sorts of things very much at his own pace, which is not quick, he likes to work things through gradually himself. Yeah.…….Things happened very slowly often, and Sue was much snappier wanting - wanting to get on this boat and sail it, you know, that's how I felt, and dad just really was quite happy to sit there and drink some nice wine for a few weeks and think about it. Okay. And that -…….There was friction. - as you understand it, was - was the source of the tension and different expectations -…….Very much,. - of what the boat would put to?…….Yeah. Is that right?…….Yes. On the - oh what was your father's attitude to safety, particularly concerning boats?…….Yeah, he was - he was extremely safety conscious and - as was Sue, I mean they - they both bought a boat and they said many times that they wanted a safe boat to take the grandchildren on. Safety was number one. Yeah.…….I think, in what - and one of the justifications for a large boat - Sue told me that. Dad was very conscious of safety with the dinghy, you know, he made sure we all had lifejackets, all those sorts of things - he always had been. He took us out in dinghies a lot when we were children - safety was important. On the 27th of January you heard that he was missing apparently from onboard the vessel, is that right - the 27th of January 2009?…….Yes. And did you go to Marieville Esplanade as a result of a call from someone?…….Yes, yeah.


Do you remember who called you?…….The police phoned my wife's mobile from the Radio Room. I - I returned the call and was put through to an officer at Marieville Esplanade. I was walking to work at the time and I just - I detoured straight down to the - to Marieville, arriving there soon after nine o'clock, I think. Right. Was Ms Neill-Fraser already there?…….Yes./ Did you speak to her?…….Yes. And did you hear her speak to others that day?…….Yes. Did she - did you hear her detail her movements or the movements of the day before?……Yeah, I mean I can't honestly - there was a lot of confusion and we talked and I suppose gradually I heard her version of events, but it was amongst a lot of things going on. Yes…….Yeah. Did you learn in that version that your father had apparently been left on board but the dinghy not with it, not with him?……Yes, that came out during that day, I can't remember exactly when, but the initial thing I heard was that dad had stayed on the - had stayed on the boat overnight. Yes. Did it surprise you to learn that he'd apparently stayed on the boat without the dinghy?……Yes. Why was that?……He was very safety conscious and he would've thought straightaway that if something happened on the boat while he was on it he would've needed a way to get off, I'm thinking an explosion or a fire. Yes…….Or the boat sinking. I think he would've thought of that straightaway and wouldn't - and I don't believe in his normal frame of mind would've stayed there without the dinghy overnight. Did - in the recounting of the events that day did Ms Neill-Fraser mention that she had been back down to the boat that evening or early morning?……Sorry? Did Sue Neill-Fraser mention in her recounting of things that she had been back down to the boat the immediate evening before?……The evening before, no. No.


Now you had had a phone call the evening before, hadn't you, from someone?……Yes, very late that evening, yeah. Yes. And who was that?……A gentleman called Richard King. Did you know him previously?……No, I'd never heard of him. Did he make himself known to you and his business?……Yes, he - What was his -…….He introduced himself and explained, yeah, what - What did he explain to you?……He explained that he was - he was calling me as a - as a friend of my younger sister, Claire's. Yes…….And he had some - just a few concerns, he wanted to introduce himself to me in a private sort of way. Right. What were his concerns that he expressed to you?……Concerns about her health. What in particular about her health?……She was going through a difficult time and struggling to cope in a number of ways, anxieties and things. Yes. Did she suffer unfortunately from some mental health problems?……Yes. And are they varying intensity, that is sometimes she'll be better than other times?……Yeah, that's correct, yeah, there are episodes that are worse than others but - Right. Did Mr King tell you that he fears were centering on anything in particular at this time when he rang you?……No - well, no, I mean we talked about a number of her fears and anxieties at that time and he gave me some examples but, you know, it was mostly - mostly anxieties about family members. Right…..Myself included, my father included, our mother, she was very - she has anxieties about the wellbeing of her family and immediate friends and she's very sensitive about these things, and that was the conversation.


Right. Did the boat - the purchase of the boat or the existence of the boat come in at all in what Mr King was telling you?……She'd heard about that and that was - one of her worries was about dad and this large boat she'd heard about, she'd hadn't seen it, that was one of her concerns amongst many others. Yes. Did he tell you that she was suicidal or in danger herself of anything?……I suppose there - he was concerned that that may be a possibility and that was perhaps the reason for his phone call. He wasn't saying - he was concerned that she needed to be - we needed to be aware that she needed attention and family support. I don't think he thought she was imminently suicidal at all and neither did we but he felt that she needed support and he wanted - as he had been a friend of hers, unbeknown to me, he wanted just to make himself known to me in a personal sort of way. Yes. And it was quite a long conversation?……It was, I think it was at least an hour. Did you have any - sorry, would your sister have been able to get on the boat had she so wished in your view?

MR GUNSON SC: Oh, well -

MR ELLIS SC: To get herself on the boat I should have said.

MR GUNSON SC: I object to the question in that form. It poses or requires the witness to speculate as to means (indistinct words) this could have been achieved, pure speculation.


MR GUNSON SC: And if she'd gone out in the -

MR ELLIS SC: It can't be pure speculation it's concerning his knowledge of his sister's knowledge of means to get onto the boat, her capacity to do it, her capacity to drive, all things known to him. There's nothing pure about the speculation at all.

HIS HONOUR: Well, do you want to take those a bit at a time?


HIS HONOUR: and we'll keep going until one-ish.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Where did your sister Claire live at this stage?....Lenah Valley.


And do you know if she knew where the boat was?...She knew vaguely from what I told her, I believe, that they had a mooring off Marieville. Right. Do you know if she knew what the boat looked like?.....She would have known it was a ketch. I would have explained to her what that meant. Yes. Do you know if she knew the name of it?.....No, I don't think - no, I don't think she did. Do you know of any means that she had available, herself to get there, would she - was she - if she was so-minded?...Well l I mean - to get to the boat? Yes….No. I mean, she wouldn't have known how to operate a dinghy, how - she would have had no- no, she couldn't have got to the boat herself. Okay. Could she have got to Marieville Esplanade herself?....Oh, yes. How would she do that?....Oh she - well, I don't think she was driving much at the time, but she could have got a taxi or a bus - I mean, she was capable of - she was quite capable of travelling about the city. As far as you knew, she didn't know what the boat looked like, exactly where it was…No. How to get to it at night time…No. Anything of those things?......No. Thank you. Now, the - this was the evening of Australia Day, 26th January that you had the call from Mr King? 26th January9?.....Yes. And the next day you heard your father was missing of the boat and you went down?....Yes. And you went down to Marieville Esplanade, you got there at about 9 o'clock you've told us, Ms Neill-Fraser was already there. Did you


go somewhere after arriving at Marieville Esplanade?...Yes - well, we went to a café at one point, up in King Street, because we felt uncomfortable with the media coming in and that was with Sue and her daughters and their husbands, I think, and I went to - I made a phone call to my sister Kate who was on Bruny Island, but I couldn't get through - I left a message on her mobile and then I thought I should go and see Claire and tell her what had happened, which I did. Did you learn before you went to see Claire that Mr King had also telephoned Ms Neill-Fraser?…….Yeah, he told me that the previous evening. Right. …….He said he'd phoned my family home to get my phone number. Yeah.…….Mm. So how - how long was it between the time that you first arrived at Marieville Esplanade and the time you left to see your sister, Claire?…….I think we went from Marieville Esplanade to the café to talk about things, and I think then we went - it may be out of order in my statement, I was - when I thought it through - I think after that I went up to see Claire. So it was probably two hours after arriving. Right. Now I want you to - this is a description I want you to listen to please and comment on that Ms Neill-Fraser gave to police about your reactions that morning, that morning the 27th: That morning I first went down the police rang me. Tim was very upset about Claire and he ran off to see whether, I mean, I told him about the phone call and he was very very upset. He was more upset than I've ever seen him, and he went off immediately to talk to Claire, came back and said that - I think what he said was 'There's no way Claire could be involved she broke down and she was very upset. Now is that accurate as to what happened and your reactions?…….No, no. In what way?…….I wasn't upset in that sort of way at all. I was obviously stressed and confused, I was not upset. And the phone from King was no news to you anyway that morning, I think you've said?…….Absolutely, no. No.…….No.


So to say that you were upset, let alone more upset than you had ever been seen by her, is not true?…….No, that's not - that's not right. Thank you. Over the days that followed did you spend time in - in company with Ms Neill-Fraser?…….Yes. And did you go over events as - with her?…….Yes. And in those times did she say that she'd been to Bunnings the afternoon before?…….Yes, we talked about that, yeah. And in those times did she say that she had been down to Marieville Esplanade on the evening before?……Never, no. Did she say - did she claim that the boat had been broken into on any other occasion?……Yes, she said it had been broken into twice in Hobart on the mooring. Right. Had she told you that ever before the 27th January9?……No, never, I'd never heard anything about it and I was very surprised. Thank you. Was - at the times you saw him immediately prior to the th January 2009 was your father in any way depressed?……No, not at all, no. In any way suicidal?……No. Was he the sort of person you believe would stage his own disappearance?……Absolutely not, no. If it please.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, unless you're going to be very quick with this witness we'll stop for lunch.

MR GUNSON SC: If it please, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: We'll stop for lunch then.

MR GUNSON SC: We will.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. The jury can make their affirmation and the Court will adjourn 'til two fifteen.





<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming) Had you had any contact with your father preceding the arrival of the boat in Hobart?……Not directly from my father, I'd had a couple of text messages from Sue. Yes. Concentrate on your father first of all…….Yes. You are aware that he came back to Tasmania on or around the 16th December, aren't you?……Yes. And you are aware now that he had been admitted to hospital in Southport with a bad nose bleed and had been there for four or five days?……That's right. Now did he contact you to tell you that he was in hospital in Southport?……No. When he arrived back in Hobart on the 16th did he contact you?……I can't remember which date it was, I think it was after the 16th. Right. Would it be fair to say this, that you didn't have significant regular contact with your father?……How do you define regular? Right, well perhaps it's a fair question. Would you see him weekly?……No. Would you phone him weekly?……No. Would you phone him fortnightly?……Probably monthly I would say would be fair. Okay, so you would contact him by phone about once a month?……Yes. Presumably that would be the situation for some time leading up to his disappearance?……Yes. Would it be fair to say this, that had probably been the situation for some years?……Yes. Right. And would you go up to 7 Allison Street to go and see him very often?……Yeah. Again it was probably monthly, I think I went to see him rather than phone contact mostly. So we can accept you would either telephone him or go and see him about once a month?……Well more often go and see him because -


He wouldn't send you text messages because -…….No. - like some people he doesn't bother to adopt that means of communication?……That's right. And he didn't have a mobile, did he?……No, not a personal mobile, no. No. All right. Did you see him over the Christmas break?……Yes. And did you see him, for instance, on Christmas Day?……Yes. And where did you see him?……At Allison Street. Did you go there for some Christmas function or a meal or something like that, or -…….Just a Christmas visit, yes. Christmas visit, exchange presents, that sort of thing?……That's right. Right. How long did you spend with him?……I think round about two hours. And Sue was there?……Yes. And I suggest everything seemed perfectly normal?……Yes. And you went out to the boat, I think you said, twice for - well basically short visits, you went out on the boat when it was on the mooring one day, and on another occasion you went on the boat at the marina?…….That's right. I'll come back to those in a moment. Do you remember having your father and Sue around for dinner several days before he disappeared?…….Yes. Thank you. And they came to your house one evening and had a meal?…….Well it was the Saturday night before Australia Day. Yeah, and spent several hours there?…….That's right. And a very pleasant evening?…….Yeah, it was, it was just - well it was just a typical evening with -


I'm not sure what a typical evening in the Chappell household is, but let me approach it this way; it was a meal with your father and his partner, with you and your wife?…….And - and Caroline - Yes.…….- was there. Thank you. And it was a very pleasant evening, I suggest?…….Yeah, it was a typical family dinner, yeah, yeah. And there was obviously nothing untoward going on between your father and Sue?…….Well I mean the thing that wasn't typical about it was they had a new boat and there was a lot of - obviously conversation about that. About that, but there was no obvious arguments between them?…….There - there weren't, no. No, there was no harsh words between them?…….No. And you'd, for instance when they left, certainly weren't thinking to yourself 'My God what's going in here,' were you?…….No. No. And when you went out on the boat on the first occasion, it was, I suggest, a very pleasant family visit?…….Like I said before there were tensions and it was un - I was uncomfortable. You were uncomfortable because the two of them were basically nonstop about the boat and things that had to be done to the boat?…….I was uncomfortable because it suddenly became apparent my father was very stressed about the boat and what they'd purchased and the potential problems with it. Yes. And - go on. All right, he was stressed you thought about the boat, and I suggest he was telling you in general terms that it was going to cost a lot more than had been anticipated?…….He didn't tell me that, but - he was - he was stressed and - and there was obviously - like I - exactly like I said before there was obviously friction between the two of them, and it was a slightly uncomfortable situation. But there were no harsh words, were there?…….Oh there were many harsh words, snappy - snappy words. Snappy words?…….Yes.


But it was all about the work that had to be done on the boat?…….No, it was about a number of things - how the dinghy was operated; how the outboard motor tilted, how it was tied up, whether the boat was safe on the moorings, the boat should be different, there were many many things. All boaty things?……Boaty things, yeah. But I mean they weren't having a domestic for instance about - …..I wouldn't describe it as a domestic, no. Pardon?……It wasn't a domestic as such, no. No, it wasn't a domestic. And they weren't arguing about their personal interrelationship?……No. No. And they weren't arguing about things about home or anything?……About home, no. And they weren't arguing about finances or anything like that?……No. The subject was about the boat, the tender and things that needed to be done to the boat?……Yes, details to do with the boat and what they - and what they were going to do. And it would be fair to say this that Sue had some views on the way in which things should be done and she expressed those, fair enough?……Yes, absolutely. And your dad had some views and they didn't agree?……Correct. And you no doubt from time to time, I don't want to pry too much, have had disagreements about things, about home with your wife, she takes on view you take another, a fair comment?……It happens. Yeah. Now you've known Sue for a long time haven't you?……I think it's nineteen years. Yes. And your dad met her and they met through family friends didn't they. Correct?……Friends of - mutual friends, yeah. And after a while a relationship developed and eventually Sue and her two daughters, Emma and Sarah, moved into 7 Allison Street?……That's right. And they were then primary school age children?……That's right.


And that coincided by pure chance with you moving out of Allison Street because you were twenty two or twenty three and wanted to do whatever university students do at that age?……That's right. And don't want to do it at home, all right. And you went off with a mate in a unit and you thought, to use your own words, that Sue was a good catch for your father?……Yes. Well I mean - Just answer that, you thought that to be the case didn't you?……Yeah, it was - by that statement I meant we were slightly surprised by the relationship and - and she seemed to be a reasonable person. Well she was younger?……She was younger, she was attractive and - yes. And it was a relationship that obviously seemed to work?……It seemed to work, yes. Yes. And Sue was always instrumental in making sure that your father kept in touch with you and your sisters?……That's right. Yeah. Because your father was a bit, I suppose not so much recalcitrant, a bit slack in keeping in contact?……Yes. But Sue instigated contact regularly, didn't she?……She did. And she would - it would be she who would invite you and the others around for dinner?……That's right. Dad never rang up and said, "Look, would you like to come round for dinner on Saturday night", or something, it was Sue, wasn't it?……He rarely - he rarely would've done that, occasionally. And in fact even in those days when you were in your mid twenties you mightn't hear from your father for a month or so?……That's right. But when you went to the house over the years and saw them together they appeared to be a couple who were getting on well together?……It seemed to work, yes. And as far as you were concerned that was the situation right up until late January 2008?……Yes. Now your father was a pretty easy going sort of fellow?……I wouldn't say easy going, no.


A bit introverted?……Introverted, yes. Came across with some people as if he was difficult to get along with, a bit irritable?……He could appear irritable. Yes. And wasn't an aggressive or violent person?……Never. Right. And you never saw anything like that?……No. And there was one particular clash with a medical practitioner at the Royal that occupied his time for a while?……Yes, much earlier than what we're talking about. Mm, yep. That was the only occasion you saw him, for instance, get grumpy about a relationship?……Yes. A work relationship?……That was a work type of thing. All right. He discussed with you the fact that the global financial crisis had caused his superannuation to drop, along with a lot of other people, and he had to reconsider his retirement plans?……Yes. Correct?……That's right. When did he tell you that?……I think it was - it was either - it was late that December. It was probably the day we were on the boat, - Yes…….- on Boxing Day. All right…….It may have been a few days earlier, but it was end of that year. Right. So there were two reasons he wanted to keep going, one was to write this manual for this new machine and secondly, because it was financially better to continue on?…….That's right. All right. …….Mm. Now for some time, quite considerable time, there'd been discussions in your presence between your father and Sue about the potential purchase of a yacht, hadn't there?…….Yes, I think for about two years - Yes.…….- before they bought it.


And you are aware that they had spent a lot of time researching yachts that were available for sale?…….Yes. And you are aware that they'd been to the mainland looking for yachts?…….On at least two occasions. Yes. And were away for some time on this -…….Yes. - almost endless search for the perfect yacht?…….Yes. And they went up and down the coast of Australia looking for the yacht they thought would be perfect for their purposes?.......That's right. Yeah. And you anticipated they'd be looking for something around the forty foot mark?…….I hadn't just anticipated that I was told - we spoke about that, this is when they first starting looking - would - I was looking at some of the boats they were interested in. Mm.…….And they were of that size. Now you said in a statement to the police, "I always anticipated that they would look about for something around the forty foot mark for under a hundred thousand"?…….That's what we spoke about, yeah. And that was based on discussions between you and your dad and Sue?…….Absolutely. Right. …….Yeah. Now there were a lot of discussions about what they might do in retirement with the boat, weren't there?…….Yeah, the discussions about what they were going to do with it - I don't remember that - them as being significant at the time it was more about first getting the boat, I think. And there were discussions about the fact that there would be a need to learn to operate a reasonably large yacht?…….Yeah, I think we all had assumed that. Mm.…….Yeah, mm. Because Sue at one stage had in fact owned a Roberts 28, hadn't she?…….That's correct.


And have you ever been out on that with her?…….I think I did once. Mm. That was quite some years ago?…….Yes. And she'd got rid of that and there'd been this gap between getting a new yacht?…….That's right. You regarded her as a reasonable competent sailor, didn't you?…….She was - she knew a little bit about boats. In terms of sailing with sails up I'm - I don't know that she'd done that much but she certainly knew how to manoeuvre a boat of that size, the twenty eight foot one. Yeah.…….And - and get onto the mooring and off in a - at an amateur level, but she could certainly do it. But there were certainly never any intention expressed by either of them that they'd buy a large yacht, bring it to Hobart and then sail away and do the world or something the following week was there?……No, there was no talk about that. But there was talk about first learning how to operate the boat, correct?……I think - I wouldn't say talk I think it was probably assumed. And it became obvious to you when you first went out on the boat that it was in fact a reasonably large boat and perhaps larger than you'd anticipated they'd buy?……Much larger. Yeah. And it was indicated to you that that boat needed quite a lot of work done on it?……Yes. And you were left in no doubt about that by your father weren't you?……Not directly. But there were discussions on board the boat when you were there about the - ……I - yeah, there was tension on board, there were obviously a lot of things going wrong, a lot of things that needed work. I didn't talk with dad directly about what - how much work he thought might need to be done but I could see there was going to be a lot of things. And you talked to Sue about the work that had to be done?……Incidentally, as various things came up we spoke about it but not in a single discussion.


And she most certainly didn't say to you that you - sorry, she and your father were going to depart off to, say, the South Pacific or something like that in a few weeks time or a few months time?……No. No, there were no immediate plans like that. There were no immediately plans at all, full stop, that were expressed to you?……(indistinct answer). Right, thank you. There was an issue about the length of the leg on the outboard that was on the boat at the time, do you remember that being discussed?……Yes. And there was some issue about it simply being too long to comfortably get into Short Beach down at Marieville Esplanade……Yes. Are you aware that there was a new outboard purchased not long before your father disappeared?……I think the police told me that. I wasn't aware at the time. Your dad didn't discuss it with you?……No. No, we didn't talk about it. All right, thank you. Now this telephone conversation you had with Richard King came completely out of the blue didn't it? You didn't know who Richard King was?……No. Never heard of him?……No. And yet he phoned you at home at about 10:30 on the night of the th January, correct?……That's right. Correct. And did the conversation go for very long?……About an hour, I think. Did the terms of the conversation trouble you at all, concern you?……Not particularly, it was nothing I didn't know. Not particularly, I was a little bit concerned that I didn't know this man who'd called me who obviously had been spending time with my sister and I was a little bit concerned he may have - or what his intentions were, in a protective sort of way. Yes…….He sounded reasonable on the phone, he was articulate, he sounded like he knew what he was talking about and he sounded like he was just trying to be helpful.


How old was your sister at this stage?……She was early thirties. And he described himself as an unofficial counsellor for Claire, didn't he?……Yeah, I think that might have been the words he used, a counsellor/friend, I think. Yes, and he told you that he had called 7 Allison Street but your father wasn't home and Sue had given him your number?……Yes. Thank you. But if he told you about his concerns as expressed by Claire about your father buying this new boat -…….We talked about that. Like I said before, Claire had a number of fears and anxieties centered on family members and that was one of them and it was obviously one that stuck in my mind, but - And Richard King in fact said that it was her intention to steal the boat and sail away on it to save your father?……Well - Just answer my question, that's what he told you, didn't he?……Yeah, amongst other things, yes. Yes, certainly. I'm not asking you to comment on whether that was something she was capable of or whether she might have done it or would have done it, I'm just asking you to tell me that was what he said and that you agree with that?……Yes. You may have regarded it as completely far fetched and ridiculous, but nonetheless it was said to you, correct?……Yep. Thank you. And would it be fair to say this, that that sort of comment probably didn't surprise you?……Not at all. Thank you. And her delusions, which they are, quite often involved family members and ideas about death of family members - correct?…….Her - her anxieties sometimes - I'd say - I just like to describe them as anxieties - Thank you..…….- and they sometimes involve - mostly involve family members and friends, yeah. Now you have said, have you not, that you thought that your father was looking forward to the future involving retirement and travel on the new boat?…….He was looking forward to it, yeah.


Looking forward to travelling on it in his retirement?…….Yeah, well to using it. Thank you. …….Yeah. And he gave you an explanation for his profound nosebleed in Queensland, and that was that he'd been using regular doses of Aspro Clear -…….Yeah. - which caused thinning of his blood -…….That's - that's - - and thus, the nosebleed?…….That's exactly what he told me, yes. Thank you. Now you also said that he was very safety conscious on the boat?…….Yes. And when, for instance you went out on the boat, when it was on its mooring you went out in the rubber tender - correct?…….Yes. And who went out with you on it?…….I mentioned these people before I think, it was myself - Mm.…….- and my wife, my sister Kate - Yes.…….- and - you mean - are you talking about the actual trip or out onto the boat? No out - who went out in the dinghy with you?…….Oh dad made a number of - oh sorry - dad made a number of trips backwards and forwards that - that day. Right. …….I think there were two or three. And how many people would he have ferried out?…….Three or four at a time. If you're asking me who went on the first - No, don't worry about that. Do you all wear lifejackets?…….We had lifejackets for the kids - I think - I can't remember. You can't remember.…….I think we did actually. If I suggested probably the situation was that the kids were put in lifejackets and the adults not?…….I think that's - that's probably right but I can't remember.


I'd just like you to look at something if you wouldn't mind? Just look at - just look at these, don't make any comment about them, and when you've looked at them just return them to me please? Does that assist you in answering the question that I directed to you?…….Yes, obviously we - well that wasn't the day - No, no -…….I hope you - It would be this - fair to say - No, no, no, it would have been fair to say that when you went out on the rubber tender with your family and your others that life jackets were provided to the children but not to the adults?……That's right. I think there were life jackets on the yacht, a large number of them I recall, but not - we didn't use them in the tender. Now when you looked at the yacht was it fairly obvious to you that it might have had a bit of a hard life and needed a lot of basic maintenance carried out?……I wouldn't say it had a hard life at all it just looked like it hadn't been maintained well. It looked like perhaps that it hadn't been used that often. Come back to the steps before the purchase of this yacht. There was a lot of research done by your father and Sue wasn't there?……Yes. And you were made aware of the nature of the research that they'd done looking into various types of yachts, the price range for these yachts and their capabilities?……Yeah, in a general way. Did they ever discuss with you the fact that if the yacht had to be taken on a long voyage that they'd need a crew to assist?……No. You went down to the waterfront at Marieville Esplanade on the morning of the 27th about what time did you get there?……About 9 o'clock. And you went down there with your wife?……Yes. And you saw the dinghy from the yacht bobbing around near the rocks nearing the rowing club?……Yes. And was it tied up at that stage or just floating loose?……I think it was floating loose.


And did you notice that the rope, as Mr Ellis described yesterday correctly I think, the painter was inside the boat?……Yeah, I think it was loose inside the boat not - certainly not put away neatly. And did you go out to the yacht at all that day?……No. When you'd been out onto it both in the marina and when it was on the mooring did it appear on the deck to be neat and tidy, that is all of the ropes were looped up and tied up where they should be, or just round in piles and messy?……Somewhere in between, I'd say. Now your initial reaction or thoughts were that your father had slipped from the yacht while trying to get in the dinghy to come ashore, that's what your initial thought was, wasn't it?……Yes. And had sadly drowned?……Mm. When you went out onto the yacht how did you gain access to the yacht, by going over the side or up over the stern at that rack that's at the back?……Yeah, over the stern from the landing. Onto a platform?……Correct. Then into the dinghy and vice versa?……Correct. All right, thank you. There was initially a discussion with Sue about why the dinghy was loose and floating, wasn't there?……Yes. And she said that she probably hadn't tied it up properly and she wasn't good at knots that day, or something like that?……Correct. And that must be the answer?……Yes. All right. Sue, I suggest, seemed in a state of shock at that stage, seemed stunned?……Yes. Yep. And I suggest was very vague?……Yes, she was vague, I think- I mean you've got a situation, haven't you, with the dinghy floating there, the yacht's out six hundred metres or so and obviously in some sort of problem and -……..I think vague is not the right word, she was obviously troubled, you know, as we all were, stressed and troubled.


Stressed, and I think you said to the police that she seemed pretty stunned by what was going on?……Yes. And you all were?……As we all were. Yeah, and - and while you were all still as a family group standing around down there the media started to arrive and you started to feel uncomfortable about their presence?……Right. Understandably, you didn't want them prying into what was possibly a difficult family moment?……Mm. And you all decided to decamp, didn't you?……Yes. And you eventually ended up, I think, at the Dome Restaurant in King Street and had some coffee?……That's right. And while you were there, again I suggest to you that Sue was pretty vague?…….Not more than usual - that doesn't sound so nice. More than usual?…….But no, I mean - And sometimes you found her to be vague, haven't you?…….Yeah, that's right, I mean we - we were talking about a number of things. We were trying to make some sense of what had happened. We weren't going through things in any logical order, it was - Was it fair to say you were all probably pretty deeply shocked?…….Yeah, I think that was how it seemed. And as a family you were obviously desperately worried?…….Yes. And if I asked you, for instance, who said what and when and - you wouldn't have a clue now, would you?…….Absolutely. Because, to a large extent, everything was just overwhelming you, wasn't it?…….Yes. Yeah, and to say that Sue while you were at Dome was still in a stunned or stressed state would be correct?…….Mm. And you probably were too?…….Yes. Thank you. Now you were a bit surprised that your father had stayed on the boat overnight?…….Yeah, given some of the other details I was very surprised.


But did you express surprise that day that he'd stayed on the boat overnight?…….I did - I - I did ask a number of questions - But -…….- and try - to try and understand what the circumstances might have been. But it may well have been that he simply - no, I withdraw that. He was certainly safety conscious?…….Yes. And you were made aware the mobile phone had been left on the boat?…….Sue said that she'd left a mobile phone on the boat. And you were aware that the boat had radio communication?…….If it worked. But you're aware it was there - correct?…….I don't - I'm not sure it was working - there were a number of - a lot of the systems on the boat weren't working - yeah, I was aware it had a radio. Thank you. …….Yes. Just come back to this discussion with Richard King, I think you said earlier that he, that is Richard, was worried about the idea of your sister committing suicide that night?…….No, that's not true. Well I think he's - my note was he was concerned about a possibility of suicide - she was worried about a large boat?

MR ELLIS SC: Well I'd suggest we look at the transcript because -

HIS HONOUR: Can I have the transcript please -

MR ELLIS SC: -the recollection of the witness was quite clear that -

HIS HONOUR: Haven't got it yet?

MR GUNSON SC: I'll withdraw the question and we'll move on, your Honour, there's no need to.

HIS HONOUR: All right.


MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Were you troubled at all about the nature of the discussion you had with Richard King?……Like I said, I was troubled about who he was and what his intentions might have been towards my sister, I didn't know if he was a sinister character or not. I wasn't particularly troubled about what he said because it was nothing new to me - Yes……..- and that's - and - Thank you. You subsequently went up to 7 Allison Street for a while on the 27th?……Yes. Yes, you were there for some time. The police came and took a statement from Sue in your presence?……Yes. And you subsequently went down to see the yacht at Constitution Dock?……Yes. And are you able to tell me what time that was?……I think we got down to the yacht about four o'clock, it was late afternoon. And when you got there it was tied up to the wharf?……Yes. And were police officers on board doing whatever police officers do on boats in that situation?……When we arrived I'm not sure there was anybody on board. Right…….Yeah. Did you all go onto the boat?……Yes. Do you recall whether any police were there at the time?……Yes, there were two, Detective Sergeant Conroy and his offsider, who was Melissa or - I'm sorry, I can't quite remember her name. It was a female detective?……Female detective, yes. All right. And in their presence I suggest Sue pointed out various things that she regarded as unusual about the yacht?……Yes. And she was quite adamant about it, wasn't it - wasn't she?……Adamant, I suppose - Well she pointed out things to the police and said -……She did, she did. - "These aren't normal", correct?……Yes.


She tried a number of switches to see whether they were operating, correct?……Yes, she spent a lot of time playing with some switches, yeah. And she pointed out that ropes had obviously been moved?……Yes. And it appeared some ropes had been cut?……Yes. Do you recall her pointing out anything else?……Oh a number of things, I think we looked at. Well try and do the best you can to remember what she identified was wrong with the boat when she saw it at Constitution Dock?……I remember the first thing was the ropes, a number of ropes that she pointed out were rigged differently to how she said she left them. Right. Right. When you say she pointed out the ropes where were these ropes situated?……Oh, there was one on the main mast which I think had been cut and positioned differently. Did she point out a winch handle on the main mast, on the winches there?……We looked at the winches quite closely, there was talk about them being wrapped around the winches in a different direction or different manner to what they had being doing. Yes, thank you. I wonder if the witness could be shown please the first lot of photographs from this morning which are P3 and I'd ask you please to look at these photographs, and for your Honour's information they are 7, 8, 11 and 12, just have a look at those if you would please. Now they weren't taken in Constitution Dock but out on the boat that morning. Are these the ropes - well put it another way, are the ropes shown in those photographs the ones to which you refer that Sue identified in the Dock?……Well look the first two photos are of the main mast and the ropes at the base of that - Which numbers are on those photographs please?……Six and 7. Thank you…..Sorry, 7 and 8. But that was the area we were looking. I can't remember if that's how the ropes were when I saw them but that's certainly part of the boat we're looking at. Photo 9 shows the the - the cockpit. Well you can see the mizzen mast there, that was later the subject of a lot of discussion because the ropes on that appeared to have been rigged to haul something out of the cabin. Yes, they were coming out of the cabin?…….They were.


There were a couple of ropes -…….Well they had looked like they had been, that's the way they - I think they were laying loose on the floor of the cockpit, but they looked like that they had potentially been positioned that way. Right. What made you think that?…….Well it's - when you looked at it it was fairly obvious they were - they were hooked up to the - to the winch on the mizzen mast in the direction that would pull something out of the cockpit rather than raise a sail. For us people who don't sail, the mizzen mast is which one?…….The rear - small mast at the rear. The rear mast at the back -…….Mm. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And they appear to have been setup to a winch just like the ones at the front?…….No, the ones at the front it was diff - it was different to the front. It had - they - I think Sue thought they'd been cut and tampered with, but it wasn't quite sure - it wasn't easy to say what - for what purpose. No. Nonetheless, she commented on it?…….She commented on it. Yes.…….Yes. Did the police ask her to explain at all what she meant about the ropes being situated in this manner - did they ask her any questions that you remember?…….The police were fairly passive, I think they took on a listening role mostly that day, observations. They - Mm, to answer my question, they certainly didn't ask her, the owner, or one of the owners of the yacht, about the state the ropes were in and why she was concerned about it?

MR ELLIS SC: Well if they did - or they didn't -

HIS HONOUR: Well no, let him - let him answer if he can. What do you remember?

WITNESS: I don't - I don't remember the questions they might have asked, no.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Would it be fair to say this; that they didn't obviously express any interest in the concerns she expressed about the state of that rope?…….No, that's not true at all -




MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Well do you remember - …….I'd say they - they were very interested but they weren't trying to lead her or ask her specific questions. Well that's what I was going to ask you.…….Yeah. Did they ask her any questions about the ropes and what she meant by that?…….Well when - yeah, yes, I mean we had - when Sue identified things that appeared to be different we would gather around and we would look at it and talk about it, and the police would ask 'Well how' - basic questions, 'How would you have - how was it left before?' - All right. ……. 'How did - Thank you. …….- what's different?' and we talked about it. They - they weren't asking strong searching questions of Sue at the time. Thank you. Now let's go to the cockpit ropes, can you just describe where you saw them - the ropes that were coming from the mizzen mast…..Yes, my memory is there was an end trailing towards the cockpit which appeared to have been - and going up to the winch, in a manner that appeared to suggest that the winch had been used to haul an object or something out of the cockpit of the boat - Right, I'd like you to look at some other photographs - those ones can go back please. And could the witness be shown P9 please, or perhaps to save a lot of time, if you give me P9 - thank you very much - and I am going to show the witness, for your Honour's information, 70 through to 75 of P9. Show those to him please. Just take your time please Mr Chappell if you would, and look at those photographs - just refresh your memory from them - ….Okay. You've refreshed your memory from them. Were the ropes, as you saw them in Constitution Dock, rigged or set in the way they're shown in those five photographs?……Essentially yes. I can't remember if the ends were actually trailing into the cabin like is shown here. But you remember from -…….I'm not sure if that's a re-creation of what they thought might have happened.


If we look at photograph 7 we can see there -

HIS HONOUR: Sorry, what number? MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Sorry, 70……..70. My mistake, photograph 70, we can see there a winch, can't we?……Yes. But you remember the rope being around that winch?……Yeah, that's right, and it ends - I do remember an end trailing towards that hatch. Whether it actually - I can't remember whether the ropes actually extended down into the cabin or not when I saw them. Right……It was rigged something like that. It was very obvious to you that those ropes had been rigged in a way to go down into the cabin?……Yes. Thank you. They can be returned, please. When you saw Sue on the 27th you spent quite some hours with her that day, didn't you?……Yes. You saw her in the morning down at the yacht, or down at the Marieville Esplanade, you later were with her at Dome Café and later at her home for some time and then down at Constitution Dock for quite some time, correct?……Yes. Was that the full extent of your contact with her that day?……Yes. All right. She was physically shocked?……She appeared that way. And remained so for most of the day, I suggest?……Yes. She certainly wasn't the normal Sue that you knew?……I wouldn't say that, no, she was - she hadn't changed that significantly, she was clearly stressed and shocked. Thank you……..But she was certainly - And you weren't surprised at that given the events?……No, I suppose I didn't consider it that closely that day, no. And you didn't see any bandage on her hand that - on one of her thumbs or fingers that day?…….I - I didn't notice that.


No?…….No. And you didn't see any bandage on her - one of her wrists?…….I don't recall. And she didn't discuss any injury that she had with you?…….We didn't - we didn't talk about injury, no. Thank you.…….No. Mr Ellis asked you a question about what Sue said to the police, and the words that he used were to this effect - and I'm sure I'll be forgiven if I get them wrong - "Tim was very upset about Claire and he went off immediately to see Claire", you were no doubt that day keen to ensure that Claire knew exactly what had happened and what the situation was?…….I felt I had a responsibility to tell her, yes. And that was no doubt enhanced to some extent by the condition you knew she was in the night before?…….No - well irrespective of that really I mean I felt I, as a family member, I had to inform - You had to tell her?…….- the family. Absolutely.…….Mm. And the last thing you wanted was her to hear this from the press or somebody like that?…….Absolutely. You didn't want them calling around at the house or - …….No. - her hearing it on the radio?…….No. But you were obviously upset at the time about the fact that your dad was missing?…….Yes.' And you manifested, like any person would, I suspect, some obvious signs of being upset - you were worried, weren't you?…….I was worried. And upset?…….Mm. Correct?…….Yes, remember at this stage he was missing and we were hoping he'll turn up somewhere.


Mm - yes, but human emotion being what it is, you no doubt displayed the understandable emotions that we'd all feel in those circumstances?…….I think so. Yeah. And it would be very easy to mistake your upset state with generally the need to tell Claire?…….Yeah. Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: Well easy for whom and - it's completely hypothetical, in my submission, and unhelpful.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: He's answered "yes" your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well yes, he's answered "yes", whether - what that answer is worth is a matter for comment later on.

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you.


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): You were asked some questions about whether to your knowledge Clare knew the boat's name to be Four Winds and I think your response was you didn't believe that she knew the name?……No, I'm not even sure I knew the name at that stage so I'm not sure - I don't think she would have but I can't be sure. She'd been out on it - this is a conversation on the night of - …..Yeah, I don't remember actually taking note of the name. It's write large on the back isn't it?……Yeah, but it's not a particularly memorable one. I'm not sure that Clare knew but I can't be a hundred percent. You don't know. But the situation is you really don't know whether Clare knew one way or the other the name of the boat?……No. Thank you. There was some discussion with Sue on the day of the th and there was some theories advanced amongst you as to what might have happened to cause your dad to go missing, correct?……Yes.


And theories ranged from him falling overboard, correct, and such basic things as perhaps night, urinating over the back and falling in?……Yes, none of this explained why the boat was sunk of course. No, no, no, no, just please talk about theories, there were theories weren't there?……I wouldn't say that was one of the advanced them that was - my first reaction when I arrived at Marieville that maybe something like that had happened. Like explosion on the boat that had sunk it and he had fallen in while trying to get to - get to the dinghy but of course that didn't fit any - Absolutely, but when these initial theories were floated around no one knew why the boat was sinking at that stage did they?……That's right. Right. Now Sue did tell you that the boat had been tampered with both in Marieville - when it was off Marieville Esplanade and whilst it was in Queensland?……Yes. And she said that nothing was particularly significant but some intruders had been on board the boat in Hobart?……She said that, yeah. Yeah, thank you. And she also told you that she believed intruders had been on board the boat in Queensland?……Yes. Thank you. Did you discuss with her at any stage why she believed intruders might be wanting to get on the boat?……We talked about a number of possibilities. She made it quite clear nothing had been stolen?……She did. And it was simply a case of intruders?……Yes.



HIS HONOUR: Just a minute, is there -

MR ELLIS SC: There is in my submission a limit to which these self serving suggestions can be put in a hearsay way to a witness and in my submission the limit has well and truly been reached. Now my


learned friend is using self serving statements to advance the particular theory that the accused has been advancing apparently from a long time ago, but that doesn't make it relevant or admissible in my submission.

MR GUNSON SC: Now what she said to this witness on that day about the events is admissible, it forms part of what was said that day. My friend has led part of the conversations, this is the balance of the conversations. They're quite relevant, your Honour, and not self serving.

HIS HONOUR: Well do you propose to ask any more questions about intruders boarding the boat?


HIS HONOUR: Well we'll stop at that - well we'll leave that there and we'll - I'll ask you to continue, -

MR GUNSON SC: Absolutely.

HIS HONOUR: - continue your cross-examination. MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Thank you. Did you, when you were on the Four Winds, take any notice of the way in which the cockpit cabin was - or the pilot house was secured?……No, I didn't. Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Ellis, do you re-examine?


<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Sorry, your Honour, it's - yes. Mr Chappell, you've been asked many times about whether Ms Neill- Fraser appeared shocked on the day of the 27th and I recall you were asked if she was vague and you commenced to answer but you were interrupted, can you tell us what your answer would've been, please?……Sorry, I misheard that. You were asked was she vague -…….Vague - - and you commenced to answer but you were interrupted; can you tell us what your answer was please?…….She was distracted, I would say, as far as I've known Sue she often was a little bit vague. I wouldn't say she was particularly more - more vague that day, no. When - when she was onboard later in the afternoon she was pointing out many things none of which were particular major - well not all of which were major, would that be right?…….Right, she was noticing a lot of things and which were talking about. And presumably, comparing those things in their present state to some other state, was she?…….Yes. To the state when she last saw them?…….Yes. The day before?…….Yes. So she was very precise apparently about a number of things, not all of which were major in any way, is that right?…….Yes, yeah she was - yes. Yes - thank you, I've nothing further, if it please.


HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you, Mr Chappell, you're free to go.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Ellis?


MR ELLIS SC: Yes, I call Peter Stevenson, if it please, your Honour. Page 75, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes?

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Mr Stevenson, you're Peter Anthony Stevenson with a 'v'?…….That's correct. You live in Scarborough in Queensland?…….I do. Can you tell us where Scarborough is in relation to places we might know?…….Scarborough is on the Redcliffe Peninsula on the northern side of Brisbane, approximately 30 kilometres from the CBD. Thank you. And your occupation?....I'm actually retired but I do boat deliveries now at various times. What qualifies you to do that, anything?.....Sixty years of boating experience - I learnt to sail when I was five years of age. And over recent years, is there someone with whom you've worked in that sort of calling or - ….Yes, I have - my nephew is involved with the marine industry. He owns a company called Reality Cruises and we have large live-aboard charter boats which I have been involved with him for the past 18 years. And his name is?....James McVeigh. Yes and do you know a man called David Casson?.....I do. David is a friend of mine who - he and I worked together and have done several deliveries together, in fact we both brought Four Winds down to Hobart from Brisbane. And Four Winds is - or was - what?....Four Winds was a large ketch that was purchased by Bob and Sue in Brisbane and - steel construction, a very good sea boat and well-founded and - no, it was a nice ketch.

What is a ketch, for us who don't know?.....A ketch is two masted vessel, the main mast being for'ard of the mizzen mast, which is smaller at the rear.


Right.…Does that give you - does that help? I get two masts. Now you said Bob and Sue. Who are Bob and Sue?......Bob Carroll and Sue - Is it Chappell?......Sorry - Bob Chappell and Sue - Did you know her by a different name than Chappell?.....No I - I initially only really knew them as Bob and Sue Chappell. Mm. When did you meet them?....I met Bob and Sue initially if I recall it, it was in October, early October. We were going to do a preliminary sea trial on Four Winds, however the day that we were going to do that, the conditions - weather conditions were such - that we couldn't proceed and it was agreed that at a later date we would be contacted and carry out that sea trial. Okay. Did you see the boat that day or before or - ……I saw the boat that day and that's the day I met Bob and Sue. Right. Did you enquire of them of their boating experience or yachting experience?……Yes, I did, we spoke about it just in a general manner. Sue informed me that she'd owned a 28 foot yacht here in Hobart but they both had said that they hadn't had any - a great deal of experience particularly in ocean passage and they were looking forward to learning a lot about the boat and also travelling down to Hobart. Right. Were you retained to help on that day or did that come later?……Sorry? Did they tee you up, did they retain you to help deliver the boat that day?……Not formally, no. At that stage there was another gentleman by the name of Russell Crittenden who was involved and he was with me on that particular day but at the time that Sue and Bob did contact me he was not available to deliver the boat. Right. Did they contact you then to ask you to help deliver the boat?……Yes, through the yacht broker, Geoff Rowe, I received information that Sue and Bob wanted to talk to me and I met with them at Newport Marina on board Four Winds and we began discussions about the delivery of the boat to Hobart.


Okay. Can you tell us where Newport is?……Newport is - again on the Redcliffe Peninsular and it's - it's an adjacent suburb to Scarborough. Right. All right, you met them there I think you said and - …..Sorry? You met them there at Newport Marina…….I did. Was anything happening with the boat?……There was, the boat was being - the engineering work was being carried out by Jim McEwen who was doing work on the motor and various other smaller jobs were being - I believe being done by an electrician, I don't know - particularly - I wasn't involved with that, but they were generally having the boat prepared for the trip to Hobart. And did you assist in purchasing things and checking out the equipment on board?……I did, I spent a few days with Bob and Sue doing a safety - we did a safety audit and we required to purchase a new 406 EPIRB plus various first aid bits and pieces plus we did also purchase small chemical fire extinguishers to meet the requirements for the trip. Right. And in the course of doing that you must have talked to Sue and Bob, as you know them?……I did. Did you form any further view of their capacities and knowledge?……I did. They - certainly both Bob and Sue were very enthusiastic about looking forward to the trip and were certainly involved in making sure that the boat was going to be ready for the trip. I was aware - I made the - you know, I thought that probably we were going to experience some problems as far as their ability to be able to sail down because of their lack of experience, but they were certainly keen to learn and, you know, I was quite happy at that stage that they'd be able to undertake the journey. Okay. Now how did you and Mr Casson divide up your duties between you?……David and I have done a lot of work together and deliveries and basically my responsibility has been for the passage plan and navigation and involved with the safety aspects of the boat and David is involved with the engineering and mechanical operations of the vessel. Yep. Do you recall an occasion when David instructed Sue and Bob on the particular aspects of the boat?……I do.


And what aspects are they?……Bob and Sue were taken through the - what we call the skin fittings on the vessel, which are the - those parts of the vessel that extrude through the hull of the vessel, such things as seacocks and logs - and I know that David went through all of those with Sue and Bob just to make them familiar with where they were and what their purpose was on the boat. Now did the boat have a bilge alarm system?…….It did, it had quite a sophisticated bilge alarm system, which was identified by a - a bilge alarm panel, which was in the saloon area adjacent to the electrical box, and it had both a manual and automatic process where you could either manually operate it or it would - or it would operate automatically. Mm hm. …….It was identified by a series of lights that showed that - what position the bilge pump was on at a particular time. Right. And what is the alarm supposed to do?…….Well the alarm is designed that if there is an intake of water in a partic - and the vessel, I've explained, was broken up into, I think six seven bulk heads, which each had a - an alarm bilge in that particular section, and if water was intake - if water was taken into a particular part of the vessel the alarm would be activated to indicate that that particular part of the vessel was taking water and the pump would then automatically takeover - Yeah.…….- and - but it would also give those onboard the information that that part of the vessel was taking water. And that's if - it had to be - the batteries had to be operable for that to happen. Right. Is it the case that you left - left from Queensland, or tried to, on Sunday the 7th of December?…….That's correct. And did something happen the following day?.......It did, we - that day we came via Cape Moreton and that evening running down the coast towards the Gold Coast it was fairly severe weather and Bob and Sue both felt uncomfortable about the situation. I didn't want to put them to a position that their first night was going to be an uncomfortable scenario, particularly that they hadn't sort of experienced the trip at that stage, so I put the boat about and we went back to a lee of Cape Moreton and had a quiet night there, left early in the morning to proceed down the coast and that's when I believe Bob's haemorrhaging from the nose started and he was basically haemorrhaging on that trip to the Gold Coast. Right, did that concern you?……It did.


Was it - it was more than a bleeding nose?……Yeah, it was more than a bleeding nose, I mean it was quite a severe bleed and I - you know, I've had bleeding noses and it's sort of basically you put your head back and it's over, but this was certainly quite a severe bleed and Bob was required to bleed into a towel. Yes, and about the time that befell him did other things befall the boat?……Sorry? About the time that happened to him did other things happen to the boat?……It did, we decided that we'd go into Southport Marina and as we went to start the motor the motor wouldn't start. We immediately checked the motor at the engine room and found that the primary and secondary filters were clogged with what we call the black death, which is a fungus - oyster fungus that gets into diesel and it had clogged the filters, which meant that there wasn't any diesel that could get through to the motor. Right…….So I radioed the coastguard and they came out and took us under tow and took us into the Southport Yacht Club. Thank you. And in there did you call someone you knew?……Sorry? Did you call someone you knew once you got to -…….I did, I rang a friend of mine, Dr Laurie Kelly, and spoke to him and he has - what did he have, after hours surgeries on the Gold Coast - one at Southport and arrangements were made for Sue to take Bob over to his surgery where - not Laurie - but another doctor I believe, attended to Bob. Right. And what became of Bob?....Bob and Sue both returned later - I'm not quite sure how long they were away but they were away for quite some time and Bob had had the - his nose packed to stop the bleeding - I mean I could see at that stage that the bleeding was still bleeding because the packing had blood. Bob was lying down in the saloon area and on his back and we gave him some cold packs and he at that stage seemed quite comfortable and eventually I believe Bob went to sleep. And I presume you did that night. Tell us about the next morning, what happened? …..Next morning, Bob was - had not stopped haemorrhaging and I personally rang Laurie Kelly and spoke to him and asked if he would see Bob personally, which he did and Sue took bob over to see Laurie - I believe it was 7.30 ish, 8 o'clock in the


morning and Bob, I believe, was referred by Laurie to a specialist who then placed him in the Alamander Private Hospital. Did Sue return to the boat?....Sue returned to the boat, yes, she did. Did she seem upset by what had happened to her partner?.....Well, I wouldn't say that -

MR GUNSON SC: I object to the question in that form, your Honour. It might be best if the jury are asked to retire and I'll address it with you.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, would you all go to the jury room please? This often happens in criminal trials, it's perhaps surprising that it hasn't happened yet today.


MR GUNSON SC: I'd ask that the witness be invited to go outside, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Stevenson, would you go and wait in the foyer please?


HIS HONOUR: Now what was the question again Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Did she seem upset that her partner was in hospital.

MR ELLIS SC: By what had happened to her partner were the exact words.

HIS HONOUR: And what's objectionable about that -

MR GUNSON SC: Because the event in question we're dealing with is an event that allegedly occurred on the night of the 26th January some number of weeks later. What we're being asked here is to - what the jury are going to be asked is no doubt to form some opinion that the accused is a harsh woman, uncaring, because this witness didn't see her showing any obvious emotion about her partner being in hospital. What does it go to prove is the question, how is it relevant, to go back to s55 and ask what is its relevance. And when you ask that question I submit it cannot be relevant to a matter in issue. So what if she didn't come back and board the boat howling or showing signs of being distressed, it's irrelevant.


MR ELLIS SC: Well firstly I thought we had a time before this trial started when objections would have been dealt with but leave that as it may be the - and this is clearly proofed, this is clearly in Mr Stevenson's proof -

HIS HONOUR: I can see it on page 77, "and didn't seem upset at all".




MR ELLIS SC: And my learned friend knows full well that the evidence from Mr Stevenson and Mr Casson, if we're able to get him here, and other witnesses that - their observations of the couple were that they were not affectionate and that gave weight to what the accused said to them directly, that the relationship was over. Now two people can be in a relationship and one's left it in their mind and the other one hasn't and this is what seems to have happened in the case of Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell and the evidence is relevant to that, that for her part the relationship was over. The fact that the relationship was over makes it - is relevant because it makes it more likely that she committed murder. On the one hand Ms Neill-Fraser wishes - and has put on the record in ways that I have to lead them but I'm obliged to lead that she had a happy and intimate relationship with Mr Chappell. On the other hand her counsel objects, apparently, at the first sign of anything that undermines that story.

HIS HONOUR: Do you want to be heard in reply, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour, I come back to what I said, and I don't wish to repeat myself, but it's not a question of undermining it's a question of relevance. Some people are very open in the way they express emotions about others or to each other, others are quite different. So the jury are being asked to take a quantum leap, and that is, 'Look she just put her partner in hospital, she gets back on a boat and has to travel to Hobart, and because she's not weeping or sobbing or moaning or groaning about the fact that he's in hospital, in some way that leads to the conclusion she murdered him' - nonsense we say, and it's irrelevant.

HIS HONOUR: I think it's relevant. I - what weight, if any, can be attached to it is a matter for the jury, but it's a circumstantial case, and any evidence of signs of hostility or disinterest or closeness are all very small pieces of evidence that logically - that rationally could affect the jury's conclusion as to whether this charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I - it's not a matter of - and I don't think I need go into any question about any discussion of what's been said about undermining or having a chance to air objections yesterday - it's a very small piece of evidence. It's a matter for the jury what weight, if any, to give it, but it could rationally affect their determination of the critical question in this case, so I'll let the evidence in. I'm conscious that by doing that I might be lengthening the trial a great deal because there will no doubt be - this is no doubt a subject that - a very wide subject that could be opened up and a lot of people's observations over a lot of weeks might come in, but I think that's how it's got to be. So we'll get the jury back.



HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Ellis.


MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): Thank you. Mr Stevenson, I asked you did Sue seem upset by what had happened to her partner and, to refresh your memory, that was in the context of she having returned to the boat, he having been hospitalised with haemorrhaging. Now was she upset by what had happened to her partner or did she appear to be?……I believe Sue was reasonably concerned about what was happening, but I would say that not overly concerned. Thank you. Now did you stay there - this is in Southport, isn't it - for some days?……Correct, three days. Right, and was that because he was in hospital or was it for some other reason?……It was because we had this - we had to have the fuel cleaned and it's done by a company called a fuel doctor, which means that it has to be cleaned so that all of the fungal which causes the problem is removed from the diesel. Do you know how many times Sue visited Bob in those three days?……I believe only once. Thank you. Was the fuel problem cleaned up?……Well it was. At that stage we believed that it had been satisfactorily cleaned up but later in the trip we found that it hadn't - Okay…….- totally been cleaned up. All right, but at that point you thought it was right to go?……Yes, we did. So did you say something to Ms Neill-Fraser?……We did. I'd spoken to David and said that we'd proceed down the coast and I spoke to Sue and said that she could stay with Bob and we would proceed down the coast, and pick Sue up and Bob at a later stage. Right. And what did she say to that?…….Bob - Sue said no that she was going to proceed with us when we left port. Where was Bob?…….Bob was still in hospital at that stage. Okay. So is that what happened?…….That's - that's what happened, Bob remained in hospital and we left Southport to continue towards Hobart. Okay. Now you make a log, don't you?…….A ship's log, I do.


A ship's log - contemporaneously with events happening?…….Sorry? With - contemporaneously as events happen -…….Yes. - major events you enter it in the log. Would you look at this please? What have you got there, Mr Stevenson - well when you open it and you can see?…….Well this is the ship's log, which I wrote up during our trip down to Hobart. Okay. I don't think you put that yellow sticky note in there - …….No, no. - but you could remove it?…….I didn't do that. No, if you could take that off then please - because I tender the log, your Honour?


MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Now, I don't need you to read through it, but you - now you're aware that it's there if you need to refresh your memory -…….Thank you. - from anything, I'm sure his Honour will permit it. Was your next stop - so you've headed off from Southport, Mr Chappell was in hospital, Ms Neill-Fraser is onboard, did you go - was your next port of call Yamba?…….That's correct, we - we -

HIS HONOUR: Now you're reading this from the log, are you, Mr -


MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Ah well, just close up the log and we'll see how we'll just see how we go with the memory, if that's all right.…….Yeah. Thank you. Was it Yamba?…….It was Yamba. Was that a scheduled stop or -…….No, not really, we experienced some problems with the autopilot which we wanted to see if we could rectify it in port. And were you able to?……We managed to fix it, that it was serviceable at that stage, yes.


Any friction between you or Mr Casson and Sue Neill-Fraser manifested by then?……Any friction? Yeah……No, at that stage of - at that stage of the passage everything seemed to be reasonably fine. There wasn't any real problem at that stage. Okay. Now where's Yamba in relation to Brisbane and Sydney?……Yamba is north coast New South Wales - oh, I'm just trying to think of how many - but it's a 100 odd nautical miles south of the border. Okay. And so you stopped in there and you had auto pilot problems did you get that working?……I got the - the auto pilot we did get working at that stage, yes. Okay, set off again?……We set off again. Did you get to Sydney without a problem?……No, our next stop was Port Macquarie but we actually had planned to have an overnight at Port Macquarie as a rest break. Yeah. And did something happen, another problem on board?……Yes, we experience - that's again the motor seized up due to the filters being fouled by a fungal problem again and we had to get another short trip by the coastguard to take us over to the working platform at the Port Macquarie Marina. Okay. And did something happen to your radio?……Yes, the radio had being playing up and we could not get a radio at that stage but - so we decided that we would proceed with - to Sydney and we'd buy a radio in Sydney. Right. And is that what happened, you got to Sydney?……Yes, we got to Sydney and we had to refuel. We also - sorry, we also had to call into Port Macquarie for refuelling also. We got to Sydney and we over-nighted in harbour and the next day we re-fuelled and also purchased a VHF radio and some rope and also some vitalings done for the boat. Now, was it - was something suggested about Bob re-joining the boat in Sydney?....There was. I had got upset with Sue - and it's clearly between Pt Macquarie and Sydney - we were having, experiencing


these difficulties with the boat and although Sue was very enthusiastic to help but she obviously - she was making comments that were not helping with the process and I got upset with it and so when we got to Sydney I sort of had to speak to Sue about - you know - letting us get on with the job and - which she got upset with and spoke - she got upset and spoke to David about my attitude, but anyway I was resolved and - what was the other part of the - Oh, it was about whether Bob was out of hospital, to your knowledge…Oh, okay yeah - Bob was out of hospital and it was suggested that he could join the vessel to take the vessel to Hobart, and I had spoken to David and we both had agreed, and I certainly said that - you know, I wasn't prepared to take the responsibility after what Bob had been through in hospital to cross the Bass Straight in any condition that we wouldn't be able to get him to a point where he could be recovered quickly. Yes. So did you leave Sydney?....We did leave Sydney and our next point of call was Eden - I'm sorry - can I refer to the log? Yes - well, if -

HIS HONOUR: Well, are you sure about that or do you need to refer to the log?

WITNESS: I really - I'm just trying to recall whether we stopped between Sydney and Eden.

HIS HONOUR: Any objection to him referring to the log Mr Gunson? MR GUNSON SC; No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, look at the log.

WITNESS: No, sorry, we - it was directly to Eden.

MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): Okay. Did you have any more problems with the boat before you got to Hobart?……We did. Different things were happening, we had a number of things happened which were mechanical things that needed to be sorted out, there was - the alternator was loose and it wasn't charging batteries. We had to fix that up and we also had a situation that when the alternator was fixed that it was pushing too much energy into the regulator and we had a fairly serious burning smell in the saloon area, which I located as coming from the back of the electrical box, and opening that found that the regulator was extremely over heated.


Did that require taking any panels off?……It did, we had to remove - I personally removed the back panel of the electrical switchboard to get access to the regulator. Right. During the - going back when you had the problem with the black death, is it, the fungus that gets into the diesel?……Sorry? Going back to the time you had the problem with the black death, - ……Yes. - the fungus that gets into the diesel, did you open panels and look for problems there?……Not with the black death. What we had, we had a very severe smell in the boat - Right…….- which was similar to a sewerage spill - Yes……..- and whilst we were - this was actually while we were in Southport, we - David and I, and Sue was there, took up the floor panels in the saloon area and also in the pilot house to see if we could locate where - where there was any leakage. Bob and Sue together had spent some time going through various sections of the boat in the for'ard area where the head is, and that's the toilet. Yeah.…….And also the rear toilet, but that - that had been disconnected, so we did pro - we did lift those up and to try and find out the cause of the smell. Right. What - what do you have to do to get them up?…….Well the floor panels were in panels an we had to unscrew them and then lift them up and inspect underneath them. Okay. Well first, when you lifted them up and inspected underneath them were there any signs of contraband or drugs or guns or - …….No, certainly not. What about at any time that you carried inspections or work on that boat, any such sign of those?…….No. When you put - you put the boards down, did you?…….We did. Did you use all the screws?…….No, we - we - we at that stage hadn't located where the smell was coming from and we'd just put - we put a temporary number of screws in to hold it.


Mm, so there were some screws in but not all of them - do you remember what happened to the rest of the screws?…….Well the others were put into a plastic container and placed into the - there's a washing room come tool room on the starboard side of the vessel - Yeah.…….- and it was put in there. But you had - had a number of problems before you got to Hobart?…….Certainly did. Did Sue Neill-Fraser tell you anything about telling Bob about these?…….No, Sue - Sue actually was - wasn't really wanting us to sort of refer anything to Bob at that stage. We didn't have any contact with Bob. But you know there was an indication that not to say too much about what was happening. When you reached Hobart did you see Bob?…….I did, I went in - in the tender to pick up Bob from the shore - Yeah.…….- and bring him back to the boat when we arrived. Okay. And did you - when he got on the boat did something happen?…….Well when I got to shore Bob sort of had - asked why, you know, things had taken so long and I just said well I believed that Sue had probably kept him up to date. Yep…….And he sort of indicated that he didn't know, you know, the extent of what had been happening and I just said to Bob that I'd written up a ship's log but I also had written up a notice to owners that indicated things that needed to be attended to and that they were there and if he had any concerns to give me a ring and we could talk about it. Right. And did you take him to the boat?……I took Bob to the boat and he - he joined us there on the boat. All right. I want to ask you, Sue was on the boat when you took him to the boat and what their reunion was?……Well Bob got up on the boat in front of me and went to approach Sue and she really just stood back from him and ignored him, didn't sort of respond to his - to, you know, acknowledging that - how he was. Right. Had you noticed any signs of affection between them at the time that they were together in your company on the boat?……No.


Did Sue say anything to you on the trip about their relationship?……Sue had said to us in general conversation that, you know, basically their relationship was strained and it was over and, you know, it had been for some time. Was there any question about the ownership of the boat, about her buying - well there'll be an objection maybe - did she mention anything about buying out the boat or was there any talk about that?……She had, she said to me at one stage during the trip that, you know, she'd like to borrow a hundred thousand dollars from her mother to buy Bob's share out of the boat, she had different ideas, I believe, on what she wanted to do with it. In what way?……Well I - you know, generally I think Sue was keen to sail the boat and -

MR GUNSON SC: The witness can say what Sue said and he can tell us what she said, but he can't speculate and make it up, and I don't say that disparagingly, but he can't speculate as to the state of her mind.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Can you tell us what she said to you or what she said in your hearing about her plans in relation to the boat?

WITNESS: That she just wanted to use the boat to do extended sailing when she got the experience.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Right. Now did you form an opinion on their capacities to handle that boat, either alone or together?……I did. What was that opinion?……I felt - I felt with Sue initially that she didn't have the capacity to handle that large boat based on a physical point of view and from an experienced situation. It was a large boat, required somebody that could - required several people to operate it properly and to do it successfully you needed to have the strength and the experience to do that. Did she have the strength to carry out the physical duties that were required of - …..No. What about Bob?……No. Did you form an opinion of their respective strength when you saw them together?……I don't believe - the boat was - the running gear, which we call the running gear, which is things like winches to


handle the sail areas were large and in fact Sue could not physically wind up the sail through the - through the winch on her own, it just - she just didn't have the strength to do it. In fact we found it very difficult, they were large winches and we required one to winch and one to tail and tail - and tail means pulling the rope while one winches and we even found that in - in a heavier bloke it was difficult. Now I understand on a boat, and I know nothing, that you take turns in keeping watch?……We do. And is that happened on this voyage?……Yes, we do. We took four hours on four hours off during a passage from port to port and that was usually undertaken by both David and I. Sue would assist but we weren't in a position to put Sue onto a watch because of the - you know our - we were just concerned about her ability to handle the yacht on her own. Yeah. Well I think I asked you but I don't think you - you might have told me - did you form a view about the respective strengths of Sue and Bob; that is physical strengths, was she stronger than him or him than her?…….I did, Bob was, I thought Sue would have been more capable of handling it from - from a strength point of view than Bob. Right. During the brief time he was on, I suppose before his nosebleed, did you notice him to be unsteady though as opposed to - …….No, Bob was actually quite good at getting around the boat. Right. It's - I think you know this, but it's the case that Ms Neill- Fraser claimed to police that you wouldn't know various things that happened because you were drunk at certain times, is that right, on the trip?…….No, that's not correct and I find that offensive. What were your drinking habits on the trip?…….We during the - what we call a 'late shift' or the 'late watch' which was when we came off - during late afternoon or the evening one, I'd have a glass - maybe two glasses of wine just before I went down to have a sleep, and David would have a light beer. We - Sue would join us for a - a drink at that stage, it was in the evening and - and it was usually when Sue made - made us a meal. But certainly we didn't drink to excess. We prob - when we were in port we enjoyed a meal and a couple of drinks, but we certainly weren't in a position to - at any stage be intoxicated. Thank you. I think I've just one more question and that's about a large fire extinguisher that was onboard the boat may have been out of survey?…….It was.


Now there was a large fire extinguisher?.....There was. When we say 'large' can you show us from the witness box?.....The fire extinguisher was a chemical fire extinguisher - it would have stood - let me stand up - from the desk to that high - that round cylinder and would have weighed, I would have thought, somewhere between 12 and 14 kilos full. I don't suppose that was rolling round. How was secured?.....No, it was secured to the back of the saloon bench in the corner before you went into the laundry come tool room. It was actually right into the corner and secured by quick release catch. Right. There was another question I wanted to ask you. Are you aware of a sea cock under a panel adjacent o the toilet at the front?....I was aware that there were sea cocks there, but I personally did not physically look at it. Right. But was that panel covered - that is, the sea cocks are under it - you wouldn't see it?......No. And is it the case that - no, that's all right. I'll just leave that…..Yes. Thank you. I have nothing further, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR ELLIS SC; Oh, I'm sorry, I do have something else.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, go on Mr Ellis.

MR ELLIS SC: Subsequent to you going back home, did you receive something from Ms Neill-Fraser?....I did, I received a - Sue had arranged to send me photos of the trip and she sent me a - what are they called - dvds or whatever - a dvd with photos of our trip down, but also photos - family photos, which she hadn't taken off. Alright. I'll show you this please. …Yes, that's - Is that the CD?...Yes. How do you recognise it?...I recognise it because the cover that it's in is a - an old navigation system of mine that I no longer used and I sent in that cover.


Right thank you. I ask that that be marked for identification because there is a CD I'd seek to tender which are the relevant photographs from the trip, the ones that aren't family - family photos.


MR ELLIS SC: But there are also other family photos of - like Mr Chappell on board, I think, in a family situation, so we've removed some of the photos, this is - I think you'll agree with my learned friend, and this is the CD and the photos that I'd seek to tender.


MR GUNSON SC: Marked for identification or -


MR GUNSON SC: You asked for it to be marked for identification only, didn't you?

MR ELLIS SC: That's the CD with everything on it.


MR ELLIS SC: If that suits your Honour.

MR GUNSON SC: That's okay.

HIS HONOUR: All right, so the CD - the disc received from the accused is MFI-D, the disc with a selection of the photos received by Mr Stevenson from the accused is P14, and you're tendering some hard copy photos with that disc?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: They'd better be marked separately.


HIS HONOUR: Now what do you want to do about letting the jury see these photos?


MR ELLIS SC: We've nearly got all those photos tendered, I think. I seek that we try to publish at least the ones on the trip through the computer, I think that'll work.

HIS HONOUR: So these are in my blue folder at tab 8, is that right?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, yes, your Honour, behind the green tab. It would've been more convenient to have tendered photographs as we go as it turns out, but we wanted to do them on the voire dire.

HIS HONOUR: All right, so - well do you want Mr Stevenson to do it or do you want Ms Oakes to display these on the screen?

MR ELLIS SC: I think Mr Stevenson can if he can just keep clicking, we hope they're in the same order as they appear in view…..Do you want me to speak to these? Yes, please, if you can?…….This photo is on the sea trial we undertook out of Newport Marina before leaving on the trip. Mm hm.…….That's David Casson there and Sue. Thank you. The next one?…….Similar, that's on the sea trial out of Newport, we were testing the gear, again on the sea trial. This is on the trip south; it was a photo of Sue on the pilot house. That's a copy of the - Oh right, just go back to the one with Sue on the pilot house, if you could - okay. Now that's her at the pilot house on - somewhere on the trip from Queensland?…….Yes. And next to her she has some documents?…….She does. And is the next one a close up of those documents?…….That's correct, that's a close up of the documents. Do you recognise what the one on the bottom is?…….It is, the one on the bottom is the plumbing diagrams of the plumbing and sullage tanks, black and grey water from the toilet and various other parts of the boat. Okay. …….Proceed? Thank you. …….That's a photo of Four Winds at Southport Yacht Club when we were getting the - before we got the work done.


Yeah.…….That's relaxing at the Southport Yacht Club. That's you?…….That's me. You had a bit more weight on then?…….Well I didn't have cancer then. Right. …….This is a photo of David at the wheel, I think that was when we were actually coming into (indistinct word) still a photo of still in Sydney Harbour. Ah that's David and I the day before we got to Hobart. All right. Now look, we can see this tender at the back there?…….Yes. Is that where it was through the trip?…….It was, the tender was securely held there and wasn't used at any stage during the trip. When Bob had his nosebleed did he go in the tender?……No. Okay, thank you, could you - ……A photo of Sue on the trip close to Hobart. Yeah…..There's another one of Sue on the trip close to Hobart. Another one of Sue close to Hobart. And I think that's probably - ……And the rest of the family I believe. Yes, thank you very much. One more thing for you, Mr Stevenson, I know I promised one last question. I'd like to show you this document please. Do you recognise the - ……I do. What is it?……The bottom one? Yeah……Is the photo that we saw in the - is the - a copy of the plumbing for the black - grey water for the boat. Okay. And does it indicate that water from basically the sea goes through to the toilet in a pipe?……It's got a sea inlet which is to the right of that, which is P6, and the outlet is P5 on the left hand side. Thank you. And is there in the top I think left hand corner another picture of - a toilet diagram?……Of the - of the valve? Yeah…..Yes.


Okay. But that doesn't indicate does it, to you, that there were two toilets but rather that that's more - another thing to do with the same toilet?……Yes. Right. And the whole book itself can you tell us what that is?……Well the book itself is written up by I believe - I think it was written up previously by the previous owners but it is a log of the ship's general engineering and - electrical and general engineering of the vessel. Right. I'm just going to seek I think the particular page that I've asked Mr Stevenson to recognise and comment on.

HIS HONOUR: Well that's in a plastic sleeve isn't it?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, well Ms Oakes, could you take out that page that says "Main Head". Now is there just the one page in there or is there something at the back of it? Just take out the page that says " Main Head" Now, let me see - is there anything on the back of that page? No okay - well that page, the plumbing diagram, is P16.


HIS HONOUR: Do you want the rest of the book marked for identification Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, that might help your Honour, thank you. MFI - E - BOOK

MR ELLIS SC: If the post-it note could be put in where the page has been removed.

HIS HONOUR: So is that the evidence in chief of this witness?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you'll be more than a couple of minutes with him, won't you, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Absolutely, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes. All right. Would it inconvenience anybody if we extended the sitting hours and started at 9.30 as a matter of routine from here on?

MR ELLIS SC: It is difficult your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well tomorrow - what about tomorrow. Will we make it ten o'clock or nine thirty?

MR GUNSON SC: Ten o'clock.

MR ELLIS SC; Ten o'clock please, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. That suits me - I'm probably being a bit ambitious trying to put the foot on the accelerator. All right. The jury can make their affirmation and the Court will then adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow, and you will have to come back then too, Mr Stevenson. Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC; Before we do that, can I seek leave to look at that MFI document in that folder.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you don't need leave, you don't need my leave to inspect anything exhibited or marked for identification -If you want it overnight, that's different.

MR GUNSON SC: Well, I would like to take it away over night.

HIS HONOUR: Any objection Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Well it is different, as you point out. No, I'm sorry, I wouldn't be giving accused's counsel exhibits to take home overnight even if they hadn't been tendered and I can't -

HIS HONOUR: If you want to obtain copies of them, you can certainly have a copy to take away overnight.

MR GUNSONS C: Thank you, your Honour. If somebody could make a copy of it for me, I'd be grateful.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well that can be arranged.

MR GUNSON SC: It's the book I want, not the exhibit.


HIS HONOUR: Oh yes, I understand that.


HIS HONOUR: You can have - you can have a copy of that - Ms Oakes, it will give her something to do. Yes, go on.


<THE COURT ADJOURNED Table of Contents


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 175

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 202


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 206

<XXN - MR GUNSON: ..................................................... 211

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 216


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 229

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 232


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 235


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 238

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 248


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 255

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 262

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 272 Exhibit List

EXHIBIT #P17 - AGREED FACTS ...................................... 217


EXHIBIT #P19 - JAMES KERR'S PHOTOGRAPHS.................. 218

EXHIBIT #P20 - CD CONTAINING ELECTONIC COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS........................................................... 218

EXHIBIT #P21 - COPY OF FOOTAGE FROM COMMONWEALTH BANK SECURITY CAMERA........................................... 219

EXHIBIT #P22 - PHOTOGRAPH OF YACHT......................... 219


EXHIBIT #P24 - RECORDING OF PHONE CALL FROM TAS POLICE TO 7 ALLISON STREET WEST HOBART AT 7:11AM ON 27TH OF JANUARY 2009 ........................................... 220

EXHIBIT #P25 - STATUTORY DECLARATION OF GEORGE PARTOS .................................................................... 220



EXHIBIT #P28 - STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER PAUL GEDDES ................................................................................ 223

EXHIBIT #P29 - STATUTORY DECLARATION OF THOMAS CLARKE DATED 31ST AUGUST 2009 ............................... 223

EXHIBIT #P30 - STATUTORY DECLARATION OF ANNE CLARK ................................................................................ 223

EXHIBIT #P31 - STATUTORY DECLARATION OF DANIEL JOHN NEWBURY.................................................................. 224

EXHIBIT #P32 - STATUTORY DECLARATION OF PETER LEGGETT - ................................................................ 224


EXHIBIT #P34 - COPY OF LETTER FROM DR WILSON TO DR ISLES ........................................................................ 225


EXHIBIT #P36 - ANONYMOUS STATEMENT DATED 25TH NOVEMBER 2009......................................................... 225

EXHIBIT #P37 - ENVELOPE WITH LIFTS INSIDE ................. 230



EXHIBIT #P40 - PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY CONSTABLE LINDSAY NEEDHAM.................................................... 235

EXHIBIT #P41 - TWO CDs CONTAINING ELECTRONIC COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS ...................................................... 235

EXHIBIT #P42 - CD OF MRS SANCHEZ'S PHOTOS ............... 243

EXHIBIT #P43 - HARD COPY OF PHOTOS .......................... 243

EXHIBIT #P44 - STATEMENT BY SUSAN BLYTH NEILL-FRASER ................................................................................ 260


MR ELLIS SC: - minute with the jury in order to deal with -


MR ELLIS SC: - Mrs Zochling. We're not in a position to get to her today because there are witnesses booked - banked up who have got international bookings, by the feel of them, for next week, we won't be able to deal with her tomorrow either. So I wonder if she could be called and stood over until next week.

HIS HONOUR: Monday morning?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, I think so, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, call her - Barbara Zochling.

MR ELLIS SC: Just so we're not trying to get the order of witnesses confusing but they really do have some strange commitments - not strange but pressing commitments for next week, so -



HIS HONOUR: Ms Zochling, this trial is moving more slowly than was originally expected and other witnesses have all sorts of commitments, therefore, you're the - the Crown isn't going to call you until next week. You're free to go now but I order you to return at 9:45am next Monday - thank you, your free to go.

MS ZOCHLING: Your Honour, may I say something?



MS ZOCHLING: Yesterday - Monday - oh no, yesterday - I was unlawfully arrested and locked up -

HIS HONOUR: No you were lawfully arrested - I issued a warrant for your arrest -

MS ZOCHLING: But why you're Honour, because I'd written to the - to the prosecutor telling him why that I wouldn't be here and I never got an answer back, so I assumed that I didn't have to come, otherwise I would have been here.

HIS HONOUR: You should have assumed that you had to come and I issued a warrant because it was your legal duty to come and you didn't. Now I'm not going to dis -

MS ZOCHLING: I apologise for that but I didn't -

HIS HONOUR: I'm not going to discuss it any further I've got at trial to deal with - HIS HONOUR: Please leave.

MS ZOCHLING: Yeah, well I'm not going to be locked up any more?

HIS HONOUR: Not if you come back on Monday morning and at every other time that you're ordered to come back.

MS ZOCHLING: Next Monday morning?

HIS HONOUR: Next Monday morning, 9:45am.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: A small matter, your Honour -



MR GUNSON SC: - I raised with your Honour's associate.


MR GUNSON SC: The accused suffers from Lymphedema, I think it's called, which is a swelling of the lower legs and she has that swelling. She's asked could she sit when necessary with her back to the Court - with her back towards the dock but with her leg elevated - I just mention it because I don't want her to seem to be, as it were, disrespectful to the Court by taking that particular -

HIS HONOUR: Well I'm - I've got no objection to that occurring - do you want me to mention it to the jury and tell them that if she - T01/lk

MR GUNSON SC: - the Court by taking that particular -

HIS HONOUR: Well I'm - I've got no objection to that occurring. Do you want me to mention it to the jury and tell them that if she seems to be making herself remarkably comfortable it's because of a problem with her leg and not because of her attitude to the proceedings?

MR GUNSON SC: I think that would be very wise, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, I'll do that. Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: One more matter, your Honour, we've decided it would be of benefit for the jury to have hard copies of the photographs tendered so far and they've been arranged and set in folders at the moment, I wonder if they could be handed out. I should explain to your Honour that the tabs don't accord at present with the exhibit numbers and there is a - maybe if your Honour could look at them. Thank you. We're happy to take this out of course. They at present have an indication that there are five sets of photographs, in fact only three sets have been tendered so far.

HIS HONOUR: So the plan is that when more are tendered they'll be given copies to add to their collection?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, that's the plan and the exhibit numbers don't accord with 1, 2 and 3, so there are names of other


witnesses I suppose who are yet to be called, their photographs aren't included. That's satisfactory -

HIS HONOUR: Well I don't see a problem with that. You don't, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Not at all, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you. Do you want to do that as soon as they come in?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes please, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Any other housekeeping matters to discuss?

MR ELLIS SC: No thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, bring the jury in.



HIS HONOUR: Ladies and gentlemen, I need to explain a couple of things before we resume the evidence. The first thing is I'm told that Ms Neill-Fraser has a medical problem involving swelling of the legs and that she might need to elevate her legs during the proceedings so if you do see her making herself comfortable in the dock it's not an indication of her taking a casual attitude to the proceedings. The second this counsel have agreed that you should be given hard copies of the photos that have been tendered so far and that you'll be given them now so Mr Ellis -

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, thank you, your Honour, there should be enough for two people to share I think.

HIS HONOUR: There will be more photos to come to be added to what you've got there and you might see that there's a title page in those folders that names five photographers when so far we've only had photos from three so that's where there are five names not just the three. All right, so we're back to the evidence of Peter Stevenson, there's nothing more you want to ask him, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: No, thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: All right, recall Peter Stevenson.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Stevenson, could I ask that you refresh your memory please from the log of the Four Winds because I want to direct some questions to you about this trip. Could you just go to the first page of the log please and you'll note that on the 8th December you have put into the log the estimated time of arrival Seaway Tower, and that's presumably at Southport, was 1600 hours, correct?……That's correct. Now that didn't eventuate because obviously there was the engine failure, correct?……That's correct. And so you stayed somewhere overnight and you got the coastguard next day to take you into port, correct?……Yes, we - we stayed at Yellow Patch, which is recorded there. Yes, I just asked you whether you stayed somewhere and you've told me you have?……Yes. And you were towed into port the next day?……Correct. And that was on the 9th. Now the log doesn't record the time of arrival at the Southport Yacht Club, but what's your memory of that?……It was in the afternoon, certainly daylight. It was in the afternoon, I'm not quite - I couldn't recall the exact time. Thank you. And you then departed Southport at 1830 hours on the th?……That's correct. So it's quite obvious you were there for the 9th, 10th, 11th and th?……That's correct. And during this period of time Mr Chappell continued to have significant problems with his nosebleed, didn't he?……He did, it - Just say yes or no, please……Yes. Thank you. And if I suggested to you that he was admitted to the Elanda Private Hospital on the 11th December, in the afternoon of the1th, would you accept that? It's not in the log, just think back, please. That is he went into hospital the day before you departed to


sail down to Sydney?……I believe it was the day after we arrived, which from my recollection would've been the 10th. Thank you. I'd like you to have a look at this document and I don't want you to read it out, I want you to read it to yourself and -

MR ELLIS SC: Well your Honour, is this a document of this witness', and if not this is not an appropriate way to go about matters in my submission.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I won't pursue it that way. (Resuming): If I suggested to you that you are wrong and that it was in fact the 11th you would accept or reject that?……I'd accept it. Thank you. Now - and would you accept that during that period from when he was admitted to hospital to the time that the yacht left there were telephone calls between him; that is from the hospital, to his wife - I'm sorry, his partner, Sue, on the boat?…….I can recall telephone calls but I do not recall who they were - who they were with. Do you recall Sue at any stage saying 'Bob has just phoned from the hospital' or words to that effect?…….I don't recall that. Now he was quite concerned that he wasn't going to be on the trip down to Sydney, wasn't he?…….I believe so. Well you know that to be so, don't you - he was anxious to stay on the boat?…….He was. Thank you. And he expressed great disappointment about having to leave the boat to go into hospital to be treated for this medical condition?…….He did. And he expressed very strongly the view that he wanted to be kept informed about, as best as possible, about what was happening?…….He did. Yes. And he made a number of telephone calls to Sue on the trip down to Sydney, didn't he?…….I'm unaware. She certainly, I suggest, discussed with you a number of calls that Bob Chappell had made?…….No.


Now you've described the nosebleed that he had as a very very significant one as, quote, "It was more than a bleeding nose"?…….Yes. And a lot 5 blood was obviously discharged by him?…….It was. And to put it bluntly, there was a bit of mess caused, wasn't there?…….Into the towers, yes. Yes. But there was blood on parts of the boat as a result of the nosebleed?.......I don't believe so. Well did you look for it?…….No. Thank you. You were really only interested in sailing the yacht, weren't you?…….I was interested - interested in delivery the yacht to Hobart, yes. Yes, and your main task was to deliver the yacht, and that's what you concentrated on and the private problem that Mr Chappell was experiencing whilst an irritation to the course of the trip wasn't a major matter that you worried about?…….I was concerned, certainly. Sufficiently concerned that you need - you knew he needed to have some treatment?…….Yes. Now could the witness be shown the plan that was put into evidence late yesterday afternoon which is P16. That's the document that was tendered yesterday is it not?……It is. Thank you. And that was extracted by you from a volume of material that basically dealt with the yacht Four Winds?……Correct. And it would be fair to say this that that volume contained a lot of similar information such as electrical plans and general plans of the boat?……It did. And it's the sort of thing that you would expect any prudent purchaser of a yacht of this size to acquire from the previous owner?……That's correct. There was nothing remarkable about that book was there?……No. And you in fact would have been surprised if it hadn't been on the boat?……I would have, yes.


Because what's in that volume is material that tells the owner or the operator of the yacht about all of its working systems?……That's correct. Thank you. And it was a volume I suggest that you encouraged Ms Neill-Fraser to read so that she could familiarise herself with the working parts of the yacht?……That's correct. Thank you. And on the way down she studied it, correct?……She did, yes. Yes. And asked you a significant number of questions about the various plans and diagrams in that volume?……She certainly asked me and - but her main direction was to David. But nonetheless she asked you some questions……She did. And you explained the various aspects to her?……I did. And she also asked David and he took the time to explain issues to her?……That's correct. And that was sensible wasn't it?……It was. Yes. Now if we look at this particular diagram, P16, it shows the piping system, if I can call it that, that runs from the black water tank and the grey water tank for discharge purposes?……Correct. And it shows the toilet or in yachting talk 'the head' - correct?…….Correct. Merely shows a pipe coming into the toilet, is that correct?…….Correct. For bringing in seawater for the purpose of flushing the toilet?…….Correct. And when the toilet is flushed the contents go into the black water tank, is that right?…….Correct, that's correct. And the black water tank is then pumped when it needs to be pumped in a port?…….That's correct. Because it's not correct these days to pump it directly into the sea, is it?…….That's right.


Now there was nothing particular unique about this plumbing system that was installed for this toilet?…….No. It was pretty stock standard, wasn't it?…….It was. And it's the sort of thing that you'd expect to find on a yacht of this size?…….That's correct. And the sort of valves that are referred to, you'd expect to find those on most yachts of that size under floorboards?…….You would. Because they're kept out of sight, aren't they?…….Yes. And anybody with any knowledge of yacht systems would know where to look for a valve?…….Generally, yes. I mean when you went onboard this yacht if somebody had said to you, "Where are the relevant valves to operate the black tank, the grey tank, the toilet etcetera?" you would have said immediately, "Under the floorboards"?…….That's correct, yes. Thank you. And it's not unusual and often for these boards over the valves not to be screwed down completely to aid ease of access?…….Not - no, I can't comment on that, they have various ways of securing floorboards. Thank you. This yacht had been, to your knowledge, for sale for some time?…….It had been. You were familiar with it before you were asked to sail it to Hobart?…….I was familiar with it for a period of a month. Mm. You hadn't seen it, for instance, in a marina ready for sail before then?…….No. Right. But you were aware it had been on the market for quite some time?…….I was. What sort of condition generally was it in when you first went on board?……When I first went on board it was in what I'd call good condition. Yes…….The overall internal parts of the yacht were all in good condition, the running gear and the rigging gear all looked in good condition.


Right, and obviously from what you've told us yesterday and what's recorded in the log there were a significant number of problems encountered as you came down the coast?……That's correct. And the engine stopped a number of times for the fuel problems that you've described?……That's correct. Before the trip commenced the engine had a significant amount of work performed on it, didn't it?……It did. And were you told that the cost was somewhere in the order of twenty thousand dollars?……It was. Yes. Who carried out that work, do you know?……It was carried out by a gentleman by the name of Jim McKeown. Jim - I'm just trying to think of his surname, I believe it's McKeown. And this was carried out at the marina before the vessel left on the delivery voyage?……That's correct. Now other work was done as well, electrical work was done on board?……There was some electrical work done. And would it be fair to say from your perception all of that work was vitally necessary to get it ready to go to sea on its delivery voyage?……Yes. But obviously then there were the problems that you've described?……Yes. All right. Now you were told by Mr Chappell and Ms Neill-Fraser they'd been searching for a yacht of this size and quality for many years?……That's correct. It was made pretty clear to you that they intended to learn to sail it?……Yes. And they intended to learn to sail it together?……Yes. And a yacht of that size can be operated by two people, can't it?……Two competent people. Yes, two competent people can operate it?……Yes. But it is desirable and perhaps sensible if you're going on long voyages to have a crew, such as you two?……That's correct.


And that's commonsense, isn't it?……It is. And insofar as particularly international sailing is concerned it is very common for owners to pick up crew members in various ports and take them onto the next port and use their abilities?……That's correct. It's all part of yachting, isn't it?……Yes. And there's a whole lot of people out there who spend their lives just moving from port to port crewing yachts such as this?……That's right. And if you rig the sails correctly you can make it much easier to operate the yacht for instance with a second self furling sail?……Yes. And a - do you know whether it was self furling?……Yes. And that means you don't have to use as much effort?……That's correct. And if the next sail, you'll have to tell me what that's called?……Mizzen. The mizzen. That can be also self furled?……It can. And it was discussed with you that they'd get the mizzen self furled in Hobart?……I can't recall that. But that would be a sensible move wouldn't it?……It would be sensible. Mmm, again because it reduces the amount of labour that's necessary?……That's correct. And in fact Mr Casson has a yacht not dissimilar in size, is that right?……That's correct. The same type, Roberts 53?……It's a Roberts 44. But he and his wife who are competent sailors operate it quite easily?……They do.


And the ideal situation for people such as Mr Chappell and the accused would be, as reasonably novice using a yacht of this size, to practice short trips say on the Derwent, down to the D'Entrecasteaux Channel, round Bruny Island in those reasonably safe waters?……Yes. And it wouldn't have surprised you to learn that that was their plan?……No. And as they gained skills and competence and got to know the yacht better you would have expected that they'd gain the competence to move into longer trips?……That's right. And, as you've said, for really long trips be sensible, get extra crew?……Yes. Thank you. Now you made some comments yesterday that you didn't think the two of them were strong enough to operate the yacht……No. What made you form that opinion?……The winching arrangements on Four Winds were an older type winching arrangement so it didn't have what we call self tailing apparatus and they were a very large winch and required a lot of physical power to - to wind them, and - and at some stage on our trip we - Sue had endeavoured to operate the winch, we were experiencing some breeze of probably fifteen to twenty knots and certainly found it difficult and was - required assistance to complete the task of winding in the winch. In the brief period that Mr Chappell was on the yacht before he was hospitalised, did you observe him trying to -…….No. And - so your opinion is merely based on what you saw of him physically rather than observing him actually doing something?…….Correct. All right. You were quite impressed, I suggest, with the way in which Ms Neill-Fraser operated the yacht on the way to Hobart?…….She - Sue was extremely enthusiastic and was keen to learn all about the yacht. Mm.…….And did at various times take the wheel and operate the yacht. Yes. And got a lot of experience coming down the coast?…….Yes.


Now you were aware that she'd had experience with a 28 foot yacht?…….I was. Some years ago in Hobart?…….I did. And it was obvious to you that she had the basic skills?…….Yes. And it was obvious to you that she was a pretty fast learner?…….Yes, she did learn very quickly. Yes, and you wouldn't have let her get behind the wheel of that yacht coming across Bass Strait, for instance, or down the East Coast of Tasmania, unless you were pretty confident she could do it?…….No, but it was under supervision. Oh yes, but nonetheless, you were pretty confident that she could handle it?…….I was. And she did a pretty good job?…….She did. Right. And -…….I'd just comment that they were in short sessions. Yes. You in fact described her as, insofar as her sailing efforts were concerned, and I quote, "A gusty hands-on lady"?…….Yes. Mm. And you said that you and David felt that she will, quote, "Grab Four Winds and be the envy of Hobart" as the boat was, quote, "a real lady"?…….Yes. And you said of the trip down, it was a steep effective learning curve for all of you?……It was, it was a difficult trip. Yes. Now you said that you thought that the accused had visited Mr Chappell in the hospital in Southport once, if I was to suggest to you that in fact she visited him more than once you're not in a position to disagree with that, are you?……No, I can't recall. Well you didn't keep a track of her movements when she was off the yacht, did you?……No. You didn't follow her around the streets of Southport?……I did not. No. So at the end of the day you really haven't the faintest idea how many times she went to the hospital?……No, I'm only aware of the once.


You're aware of once because she mentioned one?……That's correct. But if there were others you wouldn't have the faintest idea?……No. Thank you. Only a minor matter, but you did mention that it was necessary to purchase a new radio in Sydney and you said it was a new VHF radio, it wasn't - that's not correct, it was just a handpiece you purchased, wasn't it? Have a look at the log. See the entry for the 17th December when the yacht was in Black Bottle Bay in Sydney?……Now that I recall it was just - yes, I'm sorry, it was the handpiece, it was - Yes, so it wasn't a new radio, it was merely a new handpiece?……Handpiece. Yes. There's quite a distinction between the two, isn't there?……Well one won't work without the other. Yes, but there's a distinction between the two parts, isn't there?……There is. Yes, and you had simply forgotten that, had you?……I had. Mm. You and Sue had a bit of a clash on the way down the coast between Port Macquarie and Sydney, didn't you?……We did. And you got upset with her and she got upset with you - that's correct?…….That's correct. And that was about the way the yacht was being operated?…….I believe so. Yes. She had one view and you had another?…….That's correct. And you felt that as the transit crew your view should prevail?…….That's correct. And that's not an unusual thing to happen on a delivery voyage, a bit of conflict between the owner and the crew?…….No. You would have been surprised if it hadn't happened?…….That's correct. Yes. And there was an occasion following this disagreement when she actually approached Mr Casson and spoke to him about what she perceived to be your bad -


MR ELLIS SC: Well unless Mr Stevenson was there -

MR GUNSON SC: I'll rephrase it. (Resuming): You are aware as a result of being -

MR ELLIS SC: Well where does this fit into it -

HIS HONOUR: No, no, just a minute.

MR GUNSON SC: I'll put it another way.


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Were you present when there was this disagreement between - sorry - when there was this conversation between David Casson and Ms Neill-Fraser?…….Was I there? Yes.…….Yes, I was. Thank you. And she spoke to him in your presence about your attitude?…….No. Well you told us that yesterday, you said yesterday, "She spoke with David about my attitude"?…….Yes, she did but she was outside the yacht, she was standing on the marina berth in Sydney. I see.…….Which was in my line of sight. Right. And what, Mr Casson reported this to you, did he?…….He did. Thank you. Now it was not the accused's decision at all that Mr Chappell would cease to be on the yacht in Sydney?…….I'm sorry? I put that very poorly to you and I'll start again. He got out of hospital on the 16th of December and there was a suggestion that he might travel on the yacht from Sydney to Hobart?…….There was. And you were quite adamant, given his nosebleeds in Brisbane, or more correctly Queensland, that he wasn't going to travel across Bass Strait?…….That's correct. Now Sue was anxious to have him back onboard if possible?…….I believe so.


Yes. And she made it very clear that she would - if you agreed, as the delivery crew, that Mr Chappell could be on the boat that he should be on the boat?…….Yes. Yes. And you and Mr Casson had a discussion about it?……We did. Did you seek advice from any medical specialist as to whether it was a good idea or a bad idea to let him come across Bass Strait?……No, I'd made the decision with discussions with David. Yes, and both of you were very concerned that if there was a repetition of what had occurred in Queensland that you could do nothing about it?……That's correct. And you were worried that you couldn't have him medically evacuated from the boat out to sea?……That's correct. Mm. And Ms Neill-Fraser, I suggest, expressed disappointment, clear disappointment, that Mr Chappell couldn't come on the trip?……I can't recall. Well do you disagree with that?……No, clear - she may have. Yes, and she made it clear to you in Sydney and in fact coming down the coast that if it was possible she wanted him to come on the balance of the trip?……She did. Yes, and that was a subject that was raised more than once?……It was. From, I suggest, basically after they started going - you started going down the coast from Southport towards Sydney it was raised a number of times?……It was raised several times. Yes, and it was along the lines, "If Bob gets better can he continue on the trip"?........Yes. Mm. Now you've told us yesterday about the removal of a number of panels on the yacht on the way down to do work that needed to be performed as certain situations arose, would you take me through that again, please?……In Southport Harbour we were trying to identify the bad smell in the saloon area and the floorboard panels were all removed to see if we could identify any leakage in those areas. Yes…….We weren't able to at that stage locate any leakages underneath the floorboards in the saloon area, -


Yes…….- so they were replaced and screws were - just temporary screws were put in place for the voyage. The other occasion I had to remove a panel was when we experienced a bad burning smell in the back of the electrical box and I removed a back panel of the electrical box to inspect the area from where the burning smell was coming. Yes. And that's the sole limit of the panels you removed?……The sole - Yes, did you move any - remove any other panels on the trip?……The - no, we didn't remove any other panels on the trip. Before the trip started was there a need for any panels in the yacht to be removed for the purpose of showing Mr Chappell and Ms Neill- Fraser how the boat basically worked?……We did remove a panel in the pilothouse just to identify what was underneath that panel which turned out to be the access to the engine room above - Yes. What, from above - ……Yes. - because the main access to the engine room is a steel door……That's correct. - just below the pilothouse……Yes. This is if you need to take the motor out. Yes. Right. Just on the subject of the pilothouse coming in from, is it the cockpit at the top?……The wheelhouse. The wheelhouse. You come down a first set of stairs……Into the pilothouse. Yes, and that's about what, only three steps, four steps?……Three or four steps if I recall. Yes, and then to get down into the saloon - ……The saloon. - there's another set of stairs?……Yes. And how many stairs was that?……Four or five I believe if I recall. And both sets of stairs were detachable so that you could get to storage compartments and things beyond?……Yes, that's correct.


And in the case of the stairs down into the saloon so you could get through the steel door into the engine area?……That's correct. Thank you. And that's a pretty standard fitting isn't it?……It is. Right, thank you. A safety audit was done on the boat before it left Southport - I'm sorry, before it left - …….Newport. - Newport, and I think you said you spent a few days there?……I did. How long did the safety audit take?……Well it was an ongoing audit because we - with Sue and Bob and David, we went through from the bow to the stern looking at various things that needed to be attended to and purchased various items that we required for the voyage. Right. Well you purchased EPIRB which you heard about?……Yes. And four small chemical fire extinguishers?……Yes. And these presumably were distributed through the boat?……Yes. Actually Bob fitted those. Yes. And did you take any real notice of the large fire extinguisher that was fitted?……We did. Right. And that was near the entrance to the little laundry?…….Correct. And it was a chemical extinguisher?…….Yes.

And you described it yesterday and its height and dimensions to us - did you actually take it off its brackets?…….I did at one stage, while - just to check the safety catch, yes. Yes. Was it in test?…….It was. All right. And you gave an estimate of its weight, I think, yesterday?…….I did. And what weight did you -…….I estimated between 12 and 14 kilos. Yes. Have you ever said on a previous occasion that it was your estimate that it weighed between three to four kilos?…….Yeah, that was incorrect, that's -

Yes.…….That was from my statement and I -


Just wait. It is a fact that you had said on a previous occasion that it weighed about three to four kilograms - that's right, isn't it?…….No, I didn't say that. You didn't?…….That was a verbal discussion with the police on the phone. Right. Well I want you to have a look at this document and then just read it to yourself, please take your time - just have a look at that document please?

MR ELLIS SC: Well again, I ask, is this a document of the witness which he has -

MR GUNSON SC: It purports to be.

MR ELLIS SC: Well is it?

MR GUNSON SC: Well it purports to be. Bring it up please, will you? (Resuming): Did you make a statement to Tasmania Police on the 28th day of January 2009 at about eleven thirty in the morning?…….The 28th, yes. Yes. You were interviewed by a police officer?…….On the phone. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no' Mr Stevenson?…….Yes. Who was that officer?…….The officer was Officer Puurand. Right. And you were in Queensland, were you?…….I was. And he purported to ring you from Hobart?…….That's correct. And you told him that there was another large type chemical fire extinguisher onboard the boat which weighed about three or four kilograms?…….I - That's what you told him, didn't you?…….If that's what it recorded I must have, yes. Yes. And there's a significant difference between what you now say it weighed and what you told Detective Puurand on the 28th, isn't there?……There is in that case.


Yes. And which of those two do you say is correct?……The 12 to 14 kilos. You never weighed it, it's merely an estimate, isn't it?……Yes. Mm. And you haven't bothered to check any similar type of fire extinguishers since to ascertain the correct weight?……I have, I use those size extinguishers often. Have you weighed one?……I haven't physically weighed one. Thank you. What brand was it?……I'm unaware of the brand. The type you use often?……Sorry? You just said you used the type often and you can't tell us the brand.

MR ELLIS SC: No, he said those size, now if the witness is going to be -

WITNESS: They're a -

HIS HONOUR: No, just a minute, just a minute, Mr Stevenson. Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes. My learned friend just addressed a comment to the witness that he said he used those type, but in fact he said, 'I use those size", then my learned friend - well, I'm sorry, he was rebuked or corrected on the basis it wasn't accurate.

MR GUNSON SC: I'll clarify it.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): What brand was the fire extinguisher?……I don't - I'm not aware. And it was a chemical one?……Yes. No doubt about that?……No, not to my recollection. Did you bother when you looked at it to read the instructions on it, for instance, to satisfy yourself as to what might be in it?……It was identified because of the particular colour. Yes, and which colour was that?……It was red with black markings.


You don't know the brand?……No. And did you actually take it off its brackets?……I actually removed it from its brackets to just check the safety catch and put it back prior to leaving. And you've never weighed one of these to determine its correct weight?……No, I have not. Thank you. When the boat arrived in Hobart on the night of the - I think the 24th it arrived about 11:00 p.m. or thereabouts?……I believe so we were that time. A fairly wet and miserable night, I believe?……Yes. And it really wasn't suitable for anybody to come out to the yacht that night…..No. And probably would have been dangerous to do it?……Well it wasn't suitable. Thank you. And next morning you went in and got Mr Chappell…..I did. And Ms Neill-Fraser was on the deck when he arrived?……Yes. And they spoke to each other?……They did. And they were perfectly pleasant to each other?……They just greeted each other, yes. They greeted each other……Yes. But you seemed unduly concerned about the fact that they didn't apparently embrace or kiss or something, is that right?……No, I just noticed that Bob approached Sue and she stood back. And they spoke?……They spoke, yes. And it was perfectly civil?……Correct. Didn't exchange a harsh word in your presence?……No.


And how much time did you spend with them aboard the boat that day?……We spent several hours before we - with both Bob and Sue before we departed to Brisbane. Yes, and during that time whilst in your presence they were perfectly civil?……Yes. Neither was sniping or snapping at each other?……No. And they talked about the trip?……They did. Sue gave him very great details about the trip?……Sue gave him details of the trip, yes. And talked about some of the problems that have been experienced on the boat?……I believe so. Yes. And they behaved in a perfectly proper way towards each other?……They did. And did you leave them on the boat or did they go ashore with you?……No, Bob and Sue helped us with all of our gear to shore and then we went to Sue and Bob's home to shower before our return trip. And who took you to the airport?……Bob and Sue both took us to the airport. And in the time that you were in their presence in their home and on the way to the airport they behaved towards each other in a perfectly normal manner?……Yes. They didn't exchange any unpleasantries?……No. Neither was rude to the other?……No. Neither sniped at each other?……No. And she and Bob still talked about the trip?……Yes. It was a highlight wasn't it?……Yes, it was for Sue. And Bob wanted to know what had happened?……Yes. Yeah, very interested. And you and David added your bits here and there too in those conversations didn't you?……Yes, we did.


And it was pretty obvious to you they were still as best as possible trying to pick your brains for all the information they needed to get this boat up and running?……Absolutely. And they told you their plans were to move on with their sailing to try and develop their sailing skills and to learn how to operate the boat?…….Yes. Mm, and that was a pretty constant theme, wasn't it?…….It was, they were keen. Yes, very keen?…….Yes. And there were some discussions about what might happen as they got better at their sailing and learnt more skills; that is they'd do long distance trips?…….Yes, that was mentioned. Mm, and there were even suggestions of trips up to Barrier Reef?…….There may have been, I can't recall. There were certainly mention of trips to the Pacific Islands?…….Yes, there was. Mm. Do you remember any of them that were discussed - identified in particular?…….No. But generally speaking for Australian yachtsmen the Pacific Islands, our near neighbours, are very much a mecca, aren't they?…….They are. People like to go to Fiji and Tonga and Nui -…….That's correct. - and all those other exotic places?…….They do. Mm. And those sort of things were discussed?…….Yes, generally where they - they were interested in doing ocean voyages. Mm. And Bob expressed interest in those sorts of trips?…….Yes. Thank you. Now with some of the panels that were removed they weren't completely screwed back down, is that your position?…….That's right. And some of them were - some of the screws were left in a tub or something, I think you said?…….A plastic container, as I recall.


Yes. Are you absolutely sure about that?…….To my recollection, yes, I believe it was a plastic container. Right. How many water inlets were there on the boat - or to put it another way, how many points were there on the boat where water could get into the boat if inlets were opened?…….I'm not absolutely positive but David would be better answering that, but I know that we had a main water intake for the engine in the aft area and the water intake for the black water and grey water section was for'ard. There'd be a water cooling inlet for the main motor?……Yes. Yes, and there was a water cooling inlet for the generator?……I can't - I can't recall whether that was off the main inlet or it had a separate - had its own intake, I just can't recall. If I was to suggest to you that it was - sorry, did have its own intake you wouldn't disagree with that?……No. All right. If you wanted to sink a boat like the Four Winds and you knew your way around yachts and had a working knowledge of them there would be much easier ways to sink it than simply cutting the pipe to the toilet?……I imagine there would be, yes. All right. If you were asked to sink the Four Winds and could do it with absolute impunity short of blowing a hole in its side what sort of valves would you open on the yacht to try and sink it?……Well the main valve I would open would be the main engine inlet valve. Because water would pour in through there?……It certainly would. And if there was a separate valve for the generator again that would be a prime target, wouldn't it?……Correct. And beyond that?……There's another inlet which could be - which I've just thought about, would be the log, the ship's log which records the movement of the ship in the water. That's right at the front, isn't it?……Yes. All right. And that would be -……..That can be removed. Yes, and that's basically a tube or a hole, isn't it, that -……..It's a hole that goes into the fittings - skin fitting of the yacht and a small cylindrical ball rises and determines the speed of the yacht underway.


And there was also a large seacock in the aft passageway of the boat, wasn't there?……I can't recall that. But if there was again a seacock being opened would flood -……Yes. - the vessel?……It would. Yeah. The EPIRB was fitted to a bracket on board the boat?…….Yes, Bob fitted the EPIRB. Yes. And to detach the EPIRB you would have to pull it away from the bracket?…….Yes. And how was it held on the bracket?…….It actually slips into the bracket. Right. So you can pull it out of the bracket -…….Yes. - and the bracket would stay?…….Yes. But if violence was used to the EPIRB you could break the bracket - …….I - - if you didn't know how to get it out, for instance, and pulling on it you'd snap the whole - wouldn't you?…….Certainly if it was an emergency you could, yes. Yes, thank you. If I suggest to you that the screws that were in the salon in the - or saloon, that were in a plastic container weren't floor screws but were from the timber pieces holding the stair treads in place, would you agree or disagree with that?…….I'd agree - I mean they could be. They could be - thank you. So they may not be the panel screws we talked about earlier but ones that I've just described?…….No, they could have been. They could have been?…….We had a lot of screws. Thank you. There was quite a significant discussion with Sue about re-rigging the boat?…….Yes, there was. Mm, that was a major discussion, wasn't it?…….It was. And that discussion started even before you left Moreton Bay?…….That's correct.


Mm. Because they made it very clear, as we've been through before, they were going to go long distance sailing in due course?…….Mm hm, that's correct. And they were very serious about finding out how they could more sensibly rig the boat for two people?…….Yes. And you provided a lot of advice about that, didn't you?…….I did. And David did as well?…….Yes. Can you tell me what advice you gave them about re-rigging the boat to make it more user friendly for a couple?…….The - the - all of the rigging gear for the main mast was at the - for the mainsail sorry - Yes.…….- was at the mast, which in our opinion, is undes - is not desirable. Would it assist you to look at some photographs of that?…….Yes, certainly. I think it might be the early ones yesterday - Could the witness be shown P3 please, the bundle, and if you'd just take a moment and just go through probably the first -

HIS HONOUR: That's the first collection of photos from Constable Redburn.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Probably the first half dozen will do and if you just examine those for a moment. Look at the first one, it shows the Four Winds sitting on its mooring with obviously a couple of police officers standing on the deck, do you have it?……Yes. Now the main mast is where the two police officers are standing?……Correct. To the very front we have the self furling genoa?……Correct. And to operate that it's simply a matter of freeing up ropes and it comes out very simply, it furls out instead of having to raise it up the mast?……That's correct.


Now you spoke about the next one and you've suggested there could have been another self furling sail put on the vessel?……It could - yes, you can. And where would t 5 hat be?……The mizzen would be - well that would be self furling - you'd actually have to change the mizzen mast itself because they self furl into the mast. Right. And that was something that was discussed?……It was. What other recommendations did you make?……Well if you go to the one, the third one, you'll see that all of the - all of the halyards for the main mast are all winched on the mast itself. Now when you say halyards for those who - …..I'm sorry, well they're the ropes that raise the - raise the mast - raise the sail. Yes…..And secure the sail when it's up. And there's also a winch that you can see there. Well all of those - our recommendation was that you don't - that you take them all back to the cabin area to operate. Right. So that there would be no need for a person at sea or getting ready to go to sea to be up there in front of the cabin?……That's correct. And that would alleviate a lot of the problems?……It would. All right. If you look at that photograph you've just spoken about you see a lot of ropes just lying on the deck, don't you?……You do. Very unship-like, is that a fair comment?……It's very unship-like. Yes. Do you see the rope that appears to be around a cleat on the front of the mast?……Yes. That black cleat, is that the right word?……That's correct. Where would they normally be on a yacht that was properly rigged and then looked after and shipshape?……Well normally they'd be wound into a - what's the best way - we would wind them into a group and make them tidy and attach them to the base of the mast. Right. And what we see there is certainly not what you'd expect to see on a yacht -……..No.


- properly operated and run?……That's correct. Pretty sloppy, isn't it?……It is. And we see the same mess 5 in the next picture, correct?……That's correct. And again if we go to the next couple where we see ropes lying on the deck there, again that is somewhat unusual, isn't it?……It is. All right. And if we look at photograph number 9, does it have a sticker on it?……Yes, it does. All right. Do you see a winch there with a rope around it?……At the rear, yes. Yes, the winch on the starboard side?……Yes. That isn't the way you'd normally leave a yacht, is it?……No. Those particular ropes would be curled up somewhere?……Yes. Right. And if we look at photograph number 12 and number 11 we can see there that's the mizzen mast -…….Correct. - with ropes obviously hanging neatly on cleats, is that the way they should be left?……Well there's - there's one that I can see hanging correctly, the others are not - Perhaps look at the ones that are actually hanging, that's the correct way?……Yes, that's the correct way. And what we see coming off the cleat at the front of the mizzen mast going down onto the deck is unusual?……It is. And quite inappropriate?………….It is. Thank you. If that can be returned to the associate please? I just move to the trip coming down the coast; at sea for quite a long time?…….Sorry? You were at sea for quite a long time coming down -…….We were. - from Southport to Sydney, and then from Sydney down to Tasmania?.......Yes.


And I suppose, on the way down you all got to know each other pretty well?…….We did. And you if you were in port you'd go out and have a meal at the local yacht club or something?…….We did. And have a few drinks?…….We did. And all of you discussed your relationships and so forth?…….Yes. Yeah, pretty open and frank?…….Yes. All right. And you had a partner called, I think, at that time called Judy?…….No. No. I'm sorry, my mistake, that was David. There was a discussion about the fact that his partner was off on a crew somewhere?…….I can't recall. You can't recall that? There were discussions between you and the accused about your partner, Bev?…….Yes. And for instance, you told her things like, that there was a twenty eight year old daughter living at home and that caused problems?…….Yes. Yes. And you were doing a bit of internet dating on your computer on the way down?…….I think that is right. Yes. And you told the accused about that?…….I wasn't in a relationship with Bev. No, no, but you told her about your internet dating?…….Yes, of course I did, yes. Yes, yes, yes well I'm not criticising you. And she told you that in the early days of her relationship with Mr Chappell that there had been a few rocky times back eighteen, twenty odd years ago?…….I can't recall that. She told you that she'd left him from time to time for a day here and a day there and went back to the farm?…….Oh she did say that, yes. Yes. And - but on the way down the coast and on the East Coast of Tasmania particularly, there were lots of calls from Bob to her?…….No.


Right.…….Not that I can recall. And of course you couldn't get mobile calls in Bass Strait because there's no reception?…….No. And in fact once you get down past Gabo Island the reception is pretty poor, isn't it?…….It is. In fact even before Gabo?…….Yes, it is. Mm. And when you get to the Tasmanian Coast you don't get reception until about St Helens or thereabouts?……That's what I - yeah, St Helens. Thank you. Now do you remember a function or a party, not quite the right word, on board the yacht in Eden?……We did. Mm, and the yacht had tied up in Eden?……That's correct. And you introduced Ms Neill-Fraser to a group of yachties that you knew in Eden?……That's correct. And you invited them on board the boat?……Sue invited the people on the boat, as the owner. I suggest that you basically approached her and said, "Is it okay if these guys I know come on board"?.......Yes, I did. She said, "Okay"?.......Yes. So the initial invitation was to you, you quite correctly referred it to the owner and there was a bit of a party?……Yes. And this was fairly late in the piece?……In - In the evening?……In the afternoon and the evening. Yes, and needless to say you'd all had a bit to drink?……We had some drinks, yep. Mm, and I suggest that you said to one of these friends of yours when they came on board, "This is Sue, her husband or partner isn't on the boat", and you said this, "She's looking for a younger man to sail the boat"?........I don't recall.


You said that jokingly, didn't you?……I don't recall that. You don't deny it?……No, I don't deny it, but I don't recall it. No. And I suggest your friend or acquaintance responded with words to this effect, "What would you do if, you know, your husband or partner couldn't sail", and she said, "Well if that was the case I'd keep the boat and use it for my children and myself and I'd ask my partner whether he wanted to sell his half share in those circumstances"…….Can't recall that. You don't deny it?……No, I don't. Thank you. And there was discussion advanced along the lines of, "Well where would you get the money", and she said, "I'd borrow it from my mother". Again you don't deny that?……Not at that stage, no. No. You quite often spoke to Ms Neill-Fraser on the way down the coast about what you perceived to be Mr Chappell's frailty, it was something that concerned you?……Yes. Mm, and you raised that on more than one occasion?…….I may have. Yes. And I want to suggest to you that at no stage did she tell you that the relationship with Mr Chappell was over?…….No, that's not right. But you certainly did not see any signs of that, did you?…….I didn't personally. No. And if that had been said her attitude to him in your presence was totally and absolutely inconsistent, wasn't it?…….Yes. Yes. No further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. So did you see signs of physical affection coming from Ms Neill-Fraser to Mr Chappell?…….No. And on that, when he boarded and approached her in Hobart after the voyage, you said he approached her and she turned away, in which way - what way did he approach, in a belligerent way or some other way?…….No, in a welcome approach. And was that expressed in any particular body way?…….Just Sue stood back and Bob didn't - didn't touch her. So he's moving forward she's moving backwards basically?…….Yes. Thank you. Now you were asked about there being blood around from Bob's nosebleed early in the voyage; I wonder if you could look please in the first set of photographs at photograph 21, 22 and 23, which we've been told by the witness are views of the steps inside the wheelhouse - do you see those - are those steps familiar to you?…….Yes, they are. And do you see in photograph 22 what appears to be blood?…….I do. And was that - and 23, more blood.……Right. Is that right?……Yes. And was that blood that was left on - on the stairs from Bob's nose bleed all the way down to Hobart?……No, it was not. What would have happened if there was blood on those stairs?……We cleaned the boat when we actually got to Hobart so it wasn't there then. Right, thank you. The discussions that you've been asked of about, you know, sailing on long trips and sailing to the Pacific who was the main, if there was a main, contributor between Bob and Sue, to those discussions in question?……Sue was during the time. Do you recall any such discussion being initiated by Bob?……No. You were asked that Sue Neill-Fraser was given the wheel on occasions on the way down was that alone, you'd just leave her to it


or - …..No, we did not, we were always within arms reach of the wheel. Why was that?……Because I wasn't confident that Sue could actually handle the steering of the boat. Right. You said that she'd endeavoured to operate the winch and required assistance to wind it was that because the winch was generally tight or was it because of the load it was - she was seeking to winch?

MR GUNSON SC: That's leading your Honour.

MR ELLIS SC: Leading - okay. (Resuming): What was she trying to winch?……Sue was winching in the main sail. Is that a heavy load?……It is a heavy load. Right. Look at photograph number 8 please, is that the winch that we're talking about?……No. It's not?……The winch that we're talking about is in the - in the wheelhouse area. Right. Just looking at that one does that handle stay with the winch at all times?……No. Do we see - perhaps just take your time and see if we can get a picture of the winch that you're speaking of……There is one there on number 9. Right…..There's a winch on the for'ard port side of that - of that photo. Thank you. I'd better make sure we're all seeing -

MR GUNSON SC: Well I can't see it.

WITNESS: No, I'm sorry that's the - I'm looking at - this is - we're looking from the stern, that's the starboard side.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Yeah.…….The winch that's closest to us on the starboard side on the right hand side there. Right. And does the handle of that stay on it?…….No.


That's - that's detachable too?.......That's correct. Is it - you've been asked about good seamanship and good practice, is it good practice to take the handle off the winches when they're not in use?…….Yes. And they're stored somewhere else?…….Yes. For safety so they don't go around and knock people on the head?…….That's correct. Okay. You were asked about speaking to Detective Puurand and the weight of the large fire extinguisher and you said, "If that's what he recorded I must have said it," is that what you - must have said three to four kilograms - was it ever your view that that was -…….No. - the weight of that fire extinguisher?…….No. No. Now you mentioned what you would do if you wished to sink the boat and you said that you would open the main valve and mentioned certain inlets - is that right?…….Yes. And opening those inlets would effect a fairly fast sinking of the boat, would they?…….It would. It would. And so if you wanted to get away from the boat and go somewhere else, dispose of a body, get to your home before the boat was noticed to be sinking, you mightn't necessarily take the fastest way to sink it - is that right?…….That's - I imagine that's the way to go. Yeah. You mentioned the - the various inlets and they all seem to have a purpose, in your -…….Yes. - your view, because the engine inlet has a purpose?…….Yes. Were you aware that there was an inlet that didn't serve an apparent purpose on that boat?……I wasn't at that stage, no. No. And someone who is familiar with boats wouldn't necessarily know where the inlet was that didn't serve any apparent purpose, would they?……No. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. I ask for Mr Stevenson's relief, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Stevenson, you're free to go. We'll take the morning break before we start the next witness.



HIS HONOUR: Now if - don't get up just immediately. I think the jury should have the opportunity to go outside and get some fresh air if that's what they want to do so I'll have them make their affirmation, but I - or they can go into the jury room if that's what they'd prefer to do, but if you do go anywhere other than the jury room, ladies and gentlemen, it's very important that you don't chat to anybody who could conceivably have anything to do with this case, so please if you don't go to the jury room and go into the foyer or go outside please do not chat to anybody that's been in the court room or even anybody that hasn't been in the court room because we don't want to get into a situation where the trial has to be aborted and started again as a result of a juror having inappropriate contact with somebody. Now the jury can make their affirmation and the Court will then adjourn for fifteen minutes.






HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes?

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Ms Chappell, you are Katherine Jane Chappell?…….Yes. You go more regularly by the name of Kate rather than Katherine?…….That's right. You live in South Hobart?…….Yes. How old are you please?…….Thirty seven. And you're the daughter of Robert Adrian Chappell from his first marriage to Yvonne Hardfeldt?…….That's right. Thank you. You have a brother Tim and a sister Claire?…….Yes. Is Claire younger or older than you?…….Claire's younger. And Tim's older?…….Yes. Last - I'm sorry - in 2008 did you speak to your father and Sue Neill-Fraser about their intended purchase of a boat?…….Yes, I did. Thank you. Do you remember what was - what was said, or what the general tenor of what was said was?…….Just that they had found a boat to buy. They'd been looking for several years on and off for a yacht. Yeah.…….That it was a large boat and that they were going to travel back up to Queensland to collect the boat sometime after our conversation - the date hadn't been set. Right. Was this a conversation you had face to face or on the telephone?…….Face to face. Okay. Did someone volunteer whose idea it was to buy that boat?…….At that stage, no, I don't think it was clear to me whose idea it was.


Did it become clear to you in subsequent conversations?…….Later, yes, I got the impression that it was Sue who particularly wanted that boat. There might be an objection to - okay, we'll -

MR GUNSON SC: There is an objection to it.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Okay, we'll just stick to what - …….Oh, sorry, yeah, sorry. - you were told.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Just ignore that last answer, ladies and gentlemen.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): You didn't have frequent contact with your father, is that right?…….That's right, yeah. Did he telephone you very close to Christmas 2008?…….Yes. What did he tell you?…….He told me that he was back in Hobart after having spent some in Queensland with Sue getting the boat. That they'd started sailing down and he'd had a severe nose bleed which resulted in him being in hospital and that Sue had continued with the other sailors on the boat and he had flown back and he was waiting for them to arrive. Was that the first you knew of his hospitalisation in Queensland?……Yes, yes. Did you make arrangements to see the boat?……Yes, we spoke about - about us catching up after the boat had arrived. Okay. And did - when did you first see it?……Boxing Day. What was the arrangement then, who did you see it with?……I arranged to go down late morning on Boxing Day to meet my father and Sue and my brother Tim with his wife and children and his mother in law at Marieville Esplanade and to go out to the boat for a - Okay. Do you recall going out to the boat?……Yes.


And do you recall any conversation of any kind between your father and Sue concerning going out to the boat?……You mean on the morning when we were there? Yeah. Yes, concerning the way that you went out to the boat?……I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. All right, okay. You went out to the boat in a dinghy did you?……Yes. And who operated that?……My father did. And do you recall any words between he and Sue concerning his operation of the dinghy?……Oh, yes, yeah. Sue was, I guess I'd have to say, criticising my father about the way he was driving the dinghy through the waves out towards the boat. Did you see much interaction between the two of them that day other than that?……No, I don't think so. I think we were talking to them - there were quite a few of us out there and they were talking to different people during the time I was there. Did you speak to Sue that day on the boat?……Yes, yeah. And did you speak to her about the trip?……Yes. And what was she telling you about it?……She was very excited about the trip she'd had down, I think it had been a wonderful experience and she was, yeah, quite enlightened by it and excited by the trip. Okay. Did she mention any plans or how she felt about coming back?……She said that she would have liked to just keep on sailing, I got the impression that, yeah, she wasn't excited at all about coming back and she would love to continue sailing further and wider seas. Right. Did you speak to your father about his plans for the year?……Yes. What were they?……He said he was planning to go back to work for another year rather than retiring, which he had sometimes mentioned. Yep……He wanted to finish writing up the work that he'd been doing for some years and leave everything very clear for whoever was going to take over from him.

HOBART 23.910


Right. And did you go on the boat again - sorry, not - yes, did you go on the boat again after that day?……Yes, on January the 18th Sue invited myself and my family over for an afternoon tea on the boat at the marina where it was then being kept. Yes, and was that a pleasant day?……Yes, look it wasn't a long visit but it was fine, yep. And was there any interaction of note between Sue and your father that day?……I don't remember them interacting that day. You were on Bruny Island, weren't you, when you were told that your father was missing on the 27th January?……Yes. Have you had - 27th January 2009, have you had any sign from him or in any way that he is still alive from that day?……No. Sometime previously had you had any conversation with Sue Neill- Fraser concerning your father's will?……Yes, I did. And when was that?……I believe that it was in 2004. Yes……..It could have been a year or two either side of that. And where was it?……At Allison Street. Can you tell us what it was?……Yes, Sue initiated a conversation about my father's will out of the blue really, and she said that my father had remade his will and that it was all quite fair and that he had quite a lot of superannuation and she named a figure that my siblings and I were likely to inherit, which surprised me, I guess - I had not discussed wills with my father, apart from -well, at all, ever. Right. You thought the figure was that she nominated at that time?.....Yes, between - do you want me to say? Yes……Between one hundred and two hundred thousand dollars. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I might ask. Did she specify whether that was that amount each -

WITNESS; Yes. Each

HIS HONOUR: Or that amount split between the three of you?


WITNESS: No. Each.


MR ELLIS SC: Sorry, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Anything arising Mr Ellis? MR ELLIS SC; No. It was only clear to me, obviously not to anyone else.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Gunson?



<XXN - MR GUNSON: Thank you, your Honour. And she told you that she had regarded the will as quite a fair one?...Yes. Did she discuss what she anticipated receiving from the estate in the event that Mr Chappell might die?.....No, no. And she obviously wasn't troubled about the terms of the will, was she?.....No. She didn't express disappointment?....No. And she in fact stressed to you that she regarded it as very fair?....Yes. Thank you. Now when you saw them on the boat on the first occasion when you went out on to it, you all went out on the rubber dinghy…..That's right. And would it be fair to say that it was a pretty choppy, rough day. Few waves?.....There were a few waves, I don't know if I'd consider it rough, no. But there was a discussion to the effect that Sue thought your father was going just a bit fast in the rubber dinghy with the waves….It was something like that, or the direction he was going into the waves or something. And basically said these words to him "Look, slow- you should slow down, the waves are a little bit high and you aren't taking them properly"…..I don't remember her exact words. But that was the thrust of it, wasn't it?...It was something to do with the way he was driving the boat into the waves, yes. She wasn't vicious, was she - she didn't sort of shriek at him like some demented harpie?....No, she was critical. Critical. Like you might be critical of somebody if you see them doing the wrong thing?…….I don't know if I'd say that. Right. But in any event, your father was very proud of the boat, wasn't he?…….I don't know if I'd say that either, no. Mm. He seemed very happy with it?…….I'm not sure.


All right. But he certainly had been working on the boat, he told you that?…….Yes, yes. And it was pretty obvious to you that he'd been working on the boat?…….Yes. Mm. And he showed you the sort of work he'd been doing?…….Work on the boat, no I don't recall him showing me work on the boat. Right. And you didn't display any interest in asking him what he'd done?…….I don't remember talking to him about specific work that he'd done on the boat. I mean, I don't wish to be critical and please don't think I am, but you had little contact with your father, didn't you?…….I had some contact with my father. Not a great deal though?…….What would you call a great deal of contact? I mean you didn't speak to him on the phone every week, did you?…….No. And he didn't phone you regularly?…….No. In fact it would be fair to say that if there was any contact you initiated the contact, because your father wasn't a person who would tend to phone up you or your brother?…….That's probably right, yes. And you would go to their place from time to time for a meal?…….That's right, yeah. Yeah. And when you went there for meals that contact was initiated by Sue, wasn't it?…….It often was, yes. In fact I suggest to you, nearly on every occasion you were invited up there for a meal it would be Sue ringing up and extending the invitation?…….Or I would have called to catch up with them and - And she'd say 'come up and have a meal'?…….That's right, yeah. Yeah. It wasn't your dad, was it?…….Oh, I spoke to dad he would - he would often - often look forward to seeing us coming around as well - maybe not invite for a meal specifically.


No.…….No - no, he would sometimes he would over the years, yeah. Is it fair to say this, that after your dad became involved with Sue Neill-Fraser, to use your words, he got a new lease of life?…….Yes. And he would spend a lot of time at her farm at Bagdad?…….Yes. And he'd been fairly unhappy in the years before that, hadn't he?…….Yes, he'd been lonely. Yeah. And he became quite a different person?…….No, still the same person - He was - well -…….- but not lonely - No, not lonely, a bit more outward?……Yes. Mm, and you were quite delighted that your father had repartnered?…… Yes. And you were quite delighted at his choice, weren't you?……Yeah. Yes, we were pleased. You have said in the past, "I was delighted that Dad had a partner who seemed so friendly, social and dependent", correct?……Yes, fair enough. And obviously he got on well with Sue's two daughters?……Yes. And they would go off and do things together as a family unit?……I don't know. They certainly went on camping trips annually and things like that. Yes, thank you…….Yes, I guess so. All right. And your father and Sue Neill-Fraser had talked about buying a boat for some years, hadn't they?……Yes It was a long term project?……Yes, over several years. Yes, and you were aware that they had made a couple of trips to Queensland looking at boats?……Yes. And had come back unsatisfied but eventually they found one?……That's right.


All right. And when you spoke to your father after his return to Hobart he told you he'd been hospitalised?……Yes. It didn't strike you as particularly strange that he hadn't phoned you whilst he was in hospital to tell you that he was there?……I did wonder. But it didn't strike you as particularly strange or unusual?……It hadn't happened before, so - Mm, all right…….- it didn't have a chance to be unusual. Thank you. How long were you on the boat on the first occasion?……I don't remember exactly but it would've been between one and two hours maybe, something like that. And you had some lunch or something to eat out there?……Yeah, we had some food and drink. A few glasses of wine?……Yep. And you observed your father and Ms Neill-Fraser talking from time to time?……You asked me that already, I think. No, I didn't. Mr Ellis might have asked you…….Oh I'm sorry, I don't remember them talking on the boat with each other, there quite a lot of us there and we were all in conversation in - Everybody's just chatting with each other?……In different groups, yeah. And both of them were showing people the boat and bits about it and talking about it?……Yes, I think so. How big was the group?……There were about ten of us and my father and Sue. And a couple of kids who needed to have - keep an eye on?……Yeah, I counted them, two kids - no, sorry, one child. All right…..No, wait a second, there were - actually there were - no, there would have been three children, just remembering who's there. Thank you. You said that Sue said she would have loved to have kept on sailing if possible……Yes.


That didn't unduly surprise you did it? It's the sort of comment anybody might make after a holiday. I'd love to be on holidays and not work -

MR ELLIS SC: What is made of this is not necessarily for the witness and her surprise or not it's a matter for the jury in my submission and relevance -

MR GUNSON SC: I'll address it - I'll address it -

HIS HONOUR: All right, we'll listen to the objection first. Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: And the relevance of whether this witness was surprised it's, in her view, the sort of comment anyone would make is not a relevant matter in this trial in my submission; she has reported it being said, that's it.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I won't persist with it. (Resuming): Did you ask her what she meant when she said she'd like to keep on sailing?……No, I didn't ask her. You just let it ride over you?……I noted the comment. Mmm, and you didn't - ……I didn't ride over me. You didn't discuss it with her?……I didn't discuss it with her, no. No, thank you. Yes, I've no further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. You were just asked did it ride over you and you said it didn't ride over you, what did you make of it?……Well I guess I was a little concerned at that comment and the way that I - the feelings I got from Sue about that issue. I just felt that - that Sue really would have liked to keep on sailing in a much bigger way than she and my father were planning to and I couldn't imagine her just settling back to doing little trips around the river. Thank you. Nothing further, thank you, your Honour.





MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour, if it's convenient I'll deal some agreed facts.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. What's going to happen, ladies and gentlemen, is that instead of witnesses coming and giving evidence about facts that aren't disputed it often happens in criminal trials that counsel for both sides make a list of the facts that aren't disputed or some of the facts that aren't dispute and they're just read out. So you'll hear this list read out and you'll have the list in the jury room at the end of the trial. Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. I tender, pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act, agreed facts.


HIS HONOUR: Now are there copies for the jury or are you just going to read them out?

MR SHAPIRO: I just plan on reading them out at this stage.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you.

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour. The parties agree pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act that the following facts are not in dispute for the purposes of the proceedings: (a): An aerial photograph of Marieville Esplanade, including the Sandy Bay Rowing Club and the Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania, is exhibit P01. A copy of the aerial photograph was annotated with the location of various items and places and the distances between those items and places. A copy of that annotated photograph is exhibit P02. A CD containing electronic copies of the aerial photograph and the annotated photograph is tendered. I tender that please.



HIS HONOUR: All right, well I'll write the number 18 in the space so that the document says is tendered as P18.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, number 2: On the 27th of January 2009, James Kerr was employed by the Mercury Newspaper as a photographer and took a series of photographs, five of which he initialled. These are produced as P -

HIS HONOUR: P19 is James Kerr's photographs and I'll write in paragraph 2 of this document, 19.


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So it says, "These are produced as P19, A, B, C, D and E". Yes.

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, a CD containing an electronic copy of the photographs is produced as - ASSOCIATE: P20.

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Commonwealth Bank at 185 Sandy Bay Road had an external security camera which captured footage of Sandy Bay Road on the 26th and 27th January 2009. From that footage police printed a still photograph from the time of 0025 hours on the 27th January 2009. Copy of that photograph is tendered as P21


HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, On the 27th January 2009 at 8:08 a.m. Ms Jane Austin of Battery Point took a photograph of a yacht which appeared to her to be sinking. That - That photograph is tendered as P - ASSOCIATE: 22.

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. And a CD containing an electronic copy of that photograph is tendered as P - ASSOCIATE: 23

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Tasmania Police called the landline at 7 Allison Street in West Hobart at 7:11am on the 27th of January 2009 and spoke with Ms Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser. A recording of that phone call is produced as P24.

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: And I'd ask if that be played if it please.




MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour.



MR SHAPIRO: I will read that statutory declaration.


MR SHAPIRO; Thank you. The above details are true and correct. In 1996 I purchased a 53ft steel ketch called Four Winds. The boat belonged to Bob Tanner and was being sold by his liquidators as he had run into tax problems. The boat was for sale by tender and my tender was successful. When I bought the boat it was sitting on a hard stand in Iluka, New South Wales. It had been stripped down as I understand that Bob Tanner had been intending to restore it. I transferred the boat to a hard stand in Coffs Harbour. Over the next three to three and a half years I restored the boat. The boat was already stripped back to the bare hull. All of the floor boards were removed..

HIS HONOUR: Well, this has been changed. "All" has been crossed out, and it says " Most of the floor boards were removed." And that's been initialled.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. "Most of the floorboards were removed. I re-did the wheelhouse, the saloon and the laundry. Most of the panelling in the wheelhouse and saloon were removed and re-finished Work was also performed on the engine and all of the plumbing was stripped out and re-done. The aft master cabin, galley and fore'd cabin needed some work, but they were not stripped bare. The fore'd head was connected to a fibreglass sump or black water tank the aft head did not have a sump and it discharged straight into the sea. You could only use the aft head at sea. The yacht also had a fibreglass grey water tank


under the galley which held the wastewater for the shower and sinks. The yacht was fitted with two freshwater tanks. I inspected one of the tanks and this looked to be in good condition and recently painted. Because this was in good condition I assumed the other tank would be in the same condition and did not inspect it. During the restoration the grey and black water tank were removed and inspected. We also inspected and cleaned the diesel tanks, which were in the keel. We cut holes in the tanks through the keel, cleaning them and welding up the holes. I did not find any contraband hidden on the yacht or any secret compartments or hiding places. Had something been hidden on the yacht I would have found it during the rebuild. Because the hull was steel I inspected very nook and cranny looking for rust. During the rebuild I put new carpet tile squares on the floor throughout the boat. The carpet tiles were not glued down. I used to have a couple of spare tiles at home, but I don't think there were any onboard the yacht. I launched the yacht in the year0. My wife and I sailed it up to the Whitsundays and to Sydney. We had intended using the yacht offshore but never did. The yacht was a bit big for what we were using it for. I'm not aware of the boat being unlawfully entered during the time I owned it. I had a security alarm fitted on the wheelhouse. I can't recall the alarm every going off. I sold the yacht in 2004 to a man from Cairns who sold wildflowers, I can't recall his name. Late last year I received a couple of phone calls from a lady called Sue, who said she was looking at buying the yacht. I gave her a run down on the boat's history. In my opinion, Four Winds, was a great boat. It was fitted with seven bilge pumps and each of the pumps was alarmed. The only way it would sink is if the seacocks were opened. Thank you, your Honour. On the 22nd of March 2009, Steven Snowden made a statement to Detective Simon Conroy. A copy of that statement is produced as P26.

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, would you like to read that?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour.




. On the 21st March 2009 Klaas Ralph Reuter made a statement to Detective Simon Conroy. A copy of that statement is produced as P ASSOCIATE: 27

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, would you like to read that.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Well what it says is - How the pumps were (brand/type ??? pumps) and would not let water run back through the system. Yes, go on.

EXHIBIT P27 CONTINUES. This statement was written for me by Detective Sgt Conroy at Australia-wide Boatsales Office at Newport Marina."

MR SHAPIRO: Continues to read Agreed facts - number 26.


Error! Bookmark not defined. - TAKEN IN


MR SHAPIRO: And number 27, on the 31st of August 2009 Thomas Clarke declared a statutory declaration; a copy of that statutory declaration is produced as P29.


HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you very much.



MR SHAPIRO: Number 28, your Honour - Anne Clark declared a statutory declaration, a copy of that declaration is produced as P30.

Error! Bookmark not defined. - TAKEN IN


MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour, number 29. On the 19th March 2009 Senior Constable Daniel Newbury declared a statutory declaration. A copy of that statutory declaration is produced as P ASSOCIATE: 31

HIS HONOUR: I'm writing that in.



MR SHAPIRO: Number 30. On the 23rd November 2009 Constable Peter Leggett declared a statutory declaration and a copy of that statutory declaration is produced as P ASSOCIATE 32.

HIS HONOUR: I'm writing that in.


HIS HONOUR: Thank you.



MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour, number 30 -

HIS HONOUR: Number thirty one?


HIS HONOUR: Number thirty one?

MR SHAPIRO: Sorry, thank you. On the 30th of October 2009, Dr Jonathon Isles wrote to Detective Shane Sinnitt, a copy of his letter is produced as P33.

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour.



MR SHAPIRO: And number 32, your Honour, on the 16th December8 Dr Roger Wilson who is an ear nose and throat surgeon based in Southport, Queensland, sent a letter to Dr John Isles. A copy of that letter is produced as P - ASSOCIATE: P34.

HIS HONOUR: I'll write that in.


MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour - 33. On 3rd February 2009 Dr Roger Wilson wrote a letter to Detective Shane Sinnitt, a copy of that letter is produced as P35.




MR SHAPIRO: And the last fact, your Honour, on the 25th of November 2009, a mature woman of sound mind declared a statutory declaration, a copy of that declaration is produced as P -ASSOCIATE: 36.

HIS HONOUR: I'm writing that in. Yes.


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you.


MR SHAPIRO: Perhaps if the jury can be shown the exhibit, your Honour, it's -

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, this is the exhibit. Just show the jury this, and they can see there's a diagram showing - it seems to show the Four Winds in the middle with the bow at the top of the page and the dinghy to the left- that is the port side near the stern and the course said to have been followed by the un-named woman's vessel across the front of it.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well there were some photos at the beginning of all that that I don't know that the jury have seen. James Kerr's photos and the Commonwealth bank photo, and Jane Austin's photo. Now, are the jury to be shown them?

MR SHAPIRO: They are, your Honour. Perhaps if I can ask if we can provide copies for the jury after the lunch break. We do have copies for them, but not -

HIS HONOUR: All right, that's convenient. And there was mention of the Marquesas Islands and the Galapagos Islands - in case the jury don't know, they're in the Pacific a long way away, over on the eastern side - the Galapagos Islands are off Ecuador, and the Marquesas are between Tahiti and Hawaii. All right. Is there anything further before we stop for lunch?

MR SHAPIRO: No, thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: all right. The jury can make their affirmation and the Court will adjourn to 2.15





HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Ellis - Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour, I have some folders for the jury of the photographs that went in as part of the agreed facts and also the photographs that went in through Mr Stevenson yesterday.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well they can be distributed. Now they'd better be told what's what - is this a folder that's going to be added to?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honour, so it's, in essence, the same as the previous folder, there's still some sets to be included and added to the folders, but the ones that are in there so far are the photographs that are already in evidence.

HIS HONOUR: So tab 1 is the photo from the security camera at the Commonwealth Bank in Sandy Bay Road?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: And tab 3 is Mr Kerr's - have I got that right -


HIS HONOUR: - tab 3 is what Mr Kerr took?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes. And tab 7 is Ms Austin's photograph, and tab are the photographs that were tendered through Mr Stevenson.

HIS HONOUR: So tab 7 is Ms Austin's photo and - when did she say she took that?

MR SHAPIRO: I'll just refer to the facts, your Honour - agreed fact number 5, on the 27th of January 8:08am.

HIS HONOUR: And that's - yes, all right, so 8:08am - so what it shows is the position of the vessel in the water?


HIS HONOUR: Yes. All right, thank you. All right, what happens now, do we have a witness?


MR SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honour, if I can call Constable John Williamson, if it please.



<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Now your full name is John Craig Williamson?……That's correct. And you're a Constable with Tasmania Police?……Yes. And where are you stationed?……The Fingerprint Section, Hobart. Is that part of Forensic Services?……That's correct. Thank you. Now if I can take you to the 29th January 2009, did you attend the vessel, the Four Winds on that day?……That's correct. And where was it?……Out at Goodwood. And what did you do in relation to that vessel on that day?……I conducted a fingerprint examination of the deck. Okay, and how does - how do you conduct a fingerprint examination?……By applying powder using a brush. Did you locate some fingerprints?……That's correct. How many did you locate?……Sixteen. And where were they?……The majority were on the handrail, which was a stainless steel structure, and there were some on the deck. So they were all on the outside of the boat?……Yes, that's correct. The top of the boat. Thank you, and when you locate a fingerprint what do you do?……What we did, I was with Senior Constable Wilson at the time, he photographed the fingerprints, then after they were photographed I used a fingerprint lifter, which is basically a clear piece of plastic with an adhesive side, you peel the cover off, place the adhesive side on top of the developed fingerprint, then you peel it back and seal it with the other side. Thank you. And what did you do with the sixteen lifts that you took?……They were filed at the Fingerprint Section. And is it the case that you create some sort of envelope for them to be - …..It's a case envelope. And do you have that envelope?……Yes, I do.


With the lifts inside?……Yes, that's correct. Thank you. I tender that if it please.


And on the 30th January 2009 did you attend the marine compound in Hobart?……Yes, in Federal Street, that's correct. Thank you. And you took some photos there?……Yes. If the witness could - …..Of a inflatable dinghy. Thank you. If the witness can be shown these photographs. Are they the photographs you took?……Yes, they are. Thank you. I tender those photos and I also tender a CD with electronic copy of the photos.



Thank you. And I'd - yes, I'd ask the photos to be displayed on the laptop, thank you. Thank you. I also have some copies for the jury, can I ask - thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Now these should go in their big folders after the first two sets of photos, is that right?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour. So number 3 on the index. (Resuming): Thank you, constable, can you explain what that first photograph is?…….The first photograph shows the inflatable dinghy. Thank you. And if you can move to the next photo?…….It shows the same dinghy but just a closer view of the - the front of it. Thank you.…….And this is a photograph of the same dinghy but shows a closer view of the inside of it and showing the left hand side. Thank you. Thanks.…….This photograph shows a mark on the side of the dinghy, which you can see in the previous photograph, where the cursor is.


Yes, thank you for that. And the next photo?……This is basically the same photograph but with a label next to it. This is a closer view of that mark. Again this is a closer view without the bar label. Thank you. Perhaps you can explain what the grey dust is on the outside of the dinghy there…….It's black fingerprint powder. Prior to photographing it I examined it for fingerprints using powder and brush. I didn't develop any fingerprints on the dinghy. Thank you. And the last photograph?……The last photograph is taken after luminol had been applied t the dinghy and the camera is in the same relative position as the previous photographs, so that's under normal lighting, that's with the lights turned off and the luminol applied. Do you think you can use the buttons there just to rotate it to the left? Thank you. Thank you, I submit the witness.



<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: When you looked at the dinghy it was obviously in new condition, blue and white, and the colour we see now is because of the large amount of -…….The black powder that I applied. Right, but it was blue and white before that, wasn't it?……Yes. Thank you. And you said you found no fingerprints or didn't develop any fingerprints from the dinghy?……That's correct. The dinghy isn't a particularly suitable surface for leaving fingerprints, is it?……That's correct. Yes, and what you're looking for when you're fingerprinting is some suitable surface such as glass or stainless steel or something that's going to hold the print?……That's correct. A smooth nonporous surface like glass, as you said, it would be about the best surface. Thank you for that. Could the witness be shown - I think it's P09, which is the bundle of photographs of the yacht - yes, they're the ones, thank you. Just take a moment, if you would please, and have a look at those - no sorry, probably the wrong - probably the - do you have that one number 2?…….Yes. Does that assist you in pointing out where you dusted for fingerprints?…….Yes, the - the majority of the fingerprints were detected on the stainless steel handrail. Right. Now perhaps you could point to the stainless steel handrail - you're talking about the one on the edge of the boat, the top rail of the boat?…….Yeah, the top rail, the second - do you want me to point so the jury can - Yes certainly, hold that up, if you would - you show the one you like?…….The top rail, the second rail and the uprights - Yes.…….- all - all around the vessel, and at the rear of the vessel there's a wooden - Try 11, does that help you?…….No, it's on top of the safety rail, there's a wooden cap - Right. You can probably see that in, I think it's photograph number , look to the left of the photograph and you'll see the wooden cap on the rail that then runs around - do you see that?…….Yes.


And that's what you also fingerprinted?…….Yeah, got prints off. All right. And you did that out at Goodwood, that would have been at the Cleanlift Marine Yard, was it?…….I'm not sure what it's called, but it's off Negara Crescent. All right. But it was obviously a slip yard?…….Yes. All right. Thank you for that. And you photographed these fingerprints you've told us about?…….No, I didn't photograph them, Senior Constable Wilson did. I'm sorry he photographed them but you developed them?…….Yes. Power - sorry - powder and brush - Now you - according to your proof you found some on the rail portside and you've got 'red', what does 'red' mean?……Oh, regarding the - the colour. Is it red and green they have on the boats? Yes. Yes, okay, so you were being very nautical were you?……No, I'm not nautical that's why I had red and green. Right. So left hand side of the boat you found some fingerprints. Are you able to say where though?……Um - Could the witness be shown I think the first lot of photographs that went in, P3 please, just take your time……I would have to look at the notes on the fingerprints lifts to get a closer - That's all right. I just want you to do your best if you would please and tell me where you found these fingerprints……Okay, I've got one on top of the wheelhouse. Right…..Top rail green side. Whereabouts though?……That's on the stainless steel. Right….I did the front of the boat and Senior Constable Wilson did the rear of the boat so we virtually - when we went on the boat I went to the front and worked around the handrail and he went in the opposite direction. Opposite direction. Thank you for that……Another one top rail, top rail -


But you haven't recorded whereabouts on the top rail. For instance you haven't sort of said, 'one metre past the mast or one metre from the bow', or something like that?……No, no. All right. Doing the best you can to remember these were they isolated or clustered?……Look I really can't answer that question. Maybe the photographs that Senior Constable Wilson took may throw some more light on it. All right, well thank you for that. No further questions of the witness.




MR SHAPIRO: Call Constable Lindsay Needham please.


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your name's Lindsay Charles Needham?……That's correct. Sorry, your name's Lindsay Charles Needham?……That is correct. And what's your rank?……I'm a constable with Tasmania Police. And where are you stationed?……Forensic Services in Hobart. Thank you. Now if I can take you back to 2009, you took photos on a number of days for this matter, didn't you?……That's correct. So you took photographs on the 30th January 2009 at Marieville Esplanade?……Yes. Took some photos on the 25th September of the Derwent Lane Jetty?……That's correct. And on the 28th September again at the Derwent Lane Jetty?……That's correct. And on the 4th February you took some photos of the vessel, the Four Winds, is that right?……That's correct, yes. Thank you. If you can have a look at these photographs, are those all photos that you took on those dates?……Yes, they are. Thank you. I tender those photographs and I tender two CDs containing electronic copies of them as one exhibit, if it please.



MR SHAPIRO: Oh yes, and I have some copies for the jury as well.

HIS HONOUR: Now these go in the back of their large folders - is this correct?


MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour. Index number 5? (Resuming): All right. Can you tell us what that first photograph is of?…….This photograph was taken at the Marieville Esplanade showing the Sandy Bay Rowing Club and a number of poles in the water. And just to be clear that's - what date did you take that one?…….That was on the 30th of January last year. Thank you. And the next one?…….That's taken at the same location, this time with the poles in the foreground facing the Derwent River. On the same day?…….On the same day, that's correct. Thank you. The next photo?…….This was taken at the Derwent Lane Jetty and it shows the pier or the jetty in the foreground and a number of yachts on the water. One of those yachts - I'll just use the cursor - was identified to me as the Four Winds yacht. And what date did you take that?…….That was on the 25th of September. Thank you, constable. And the next photo?…….This photograph was taken on the same date at the same location, it just shows a closer view of the yacht. It was taken from the end of the jetty and I use my cursor just to point to the yacht towards the centre left of the photograph. Thank you…….This was taken on the same date, the 25th September, at the Marieville Esplanade dog beach looking across the Derwent River and one of those yachts, which I'll just point out with the cursor, was identified to me as the Four Winds. Thank you…….On Monday the 28th September I re-attended the Derwent Lane Jetty and I took the following three photographs. So this photograph shows the Derwent Lane Jetty and a number of boats on the water. One of those boats, if I just use the cursor, was identified to me as the Four Winds yacht. The second photograph was taken of the boat from the end of the jetty and the yacht, where the cursor is towards the centre right of the photograph, was identified to me as the Four Winds and it shows just a closer view of that yacht. Thank you. And the - and if you can just, yeah, change the CDs, thank you. When did you take this photo?……This photograph was


taken on the 4th February, last year, on the Four Winds yacht and that was tied to the Prince of Wales Bay up here in Derwent Park. Where is that in the yacht?……This is showing the for'ead accommodation area, the floor of the yacht towards the front of the vessel. And what's that a photo of there?……That's a photograph of the floor with part of the floor and carpet removed. Do you know what the purpose of that object in the middle of the photo is?……I've since been made aware of it. I believe it's a bilge pump. Thank you. Thank you, your Honour, I submit the witness.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC: No questions, your Honour.




MR ELLIS SC: Call Caroline Sanchez, please, your Honour.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Yes, Ms Sanchez, you're Caroline Ann Sanchez?……Yes. You're a teacher?……Yes. You live in Ecuador?……Yes. And you are the older sister of Robert Adrian Chappell?……Yes. Thank you. In 2009 were you living in Sydney?……Yes. And from Sydney did you visit your brother in Hobart?……Yes. Had that been your habit for many years, to visit him?……Yes, I used to come down twice a year for perhaps eight or ten days, yes. Yeah. And when you came down would you stay with Robert and his partner, Ms Neill-Fraser?…….Yes, for the last six years, mm. Your husband doesn't - didn't come down with these - for these trips?…….Yes, he came down for - for two of the trips, mm. Right. When you - do you recall exactly when you came in 2009 for your -…….Yes, I came down on Tuesday the 20th of January. The 20th of January - thank you. How - how long had it been since you had seen your brother, Robert, then?…….That particular year I'd had commitments and I hadn't seen them for one year before that week. Right.…….Mm. Did someone pick you up from the airport?…….Yes, Sue picked me up. Did you get on well with her?…….Yes, we had a normal sister-in-law relationship. I'm not sure what that is but you got on well?…….Well in this - well in this case it was no problem.


Right. …….Mm. Okay. Do you remember what she picked you up, what she was driving?…….Yes, the - the Ford blue/grey station-wagon, yes, mm. Now were you told, or did you know that they had recently bought a boat?…….Yes, I knew they'd been looking for two years. They'd passed through Sydney earlier on and they'd been calling in at cert - at bays all the way up the coast of Queensland and New South Wales looking for a boat. Yeah.…….So I knew that they - that was their idea. Yes.…….Mm. And had you seen this boat?…….No, not until the - the 25th, mm. The 25th - the 25th of January 2009 was when you first saw it?…….Yes. In the days before - in the days between the 20th and the 25th, were you living with them at Allison Street or staying with them?…….Yes, yes, mm. And was anyone else living there then?…….No. Okay. Were there dinners with the family and generally -…….Yes. - catching up with people?…….Yes, we had a dinner with Sue's two girls a couple of nights before and then we had gone to my nephew's home and all had dinner at his home I think the Friday before. Right. And your nephew's Tim?……Yes. And on Sunday was the day that you saw - you saw the boat, do you remember the name of it?……The Four Winds. Okay. And about what time of day did you go to it?……We left about 7:30 that morning. Where did you go to?……Went down to Sandy Bay. Did you take anything with you - well in particular was anything being towed?……Yes, the dinghy.


The dinghy. What sort of dinghy was that?……It was a solid rubber with - it was white with bluey grey stripes. Did you get in the dinghy to go to the boat?……Yes. Was it a long distance?……No, it took about - it wasn't very long. Do you remember who operated the dinghy?……Yes, Sue was operating it if I remember rightly but Bob was - Bob had had experience. It was a n 10 ew motor, Bob had had the experience and he was showing her how to use it. Right…..I believe that was the trip over. It was certainly one of the trips going or coming back. Did you go anywhere on the boat, on the Four Winds?……Yes, we went down to Adventure Bay. And did you stay at Adventure Bay, get off the boat at Adventure Bay or - …..Well we were going to anchor there for lunch but it was very choppy so we decided to have lunch on the way back but at Adventure Bay because - I believe it was Bob's first day where he - that we were actually going somewhere and he wanted to practise on the boat, so he was going to put the anchor down, - Yes……- but he was having trouble, the anchor chain was somehow folded back on itself so then the two of them had to wrestle with it - Yes……- and then they realised that they would have to get - it wasn't working very well and they would have to get a spare part later on. Right……But we didn't intend to stay anyway, so we had lunch on the way back, it was smooth again. Did you go under sail or was it -…….No, no. - motor all the way?……Motor all the way. Do you remember what time you got back that day?……Yes, we reached Sandy Bay at 6:00 p.m. that evening. Yes. And from Sandy Bay where did you go?……We came home, back to Allison Street. Right. Did you go out again?……No.


And stayed home that night, just a normal night, is that right? Sorry, you'll have to yes for the transcript if you do agree……No, a quiet night, mm. A quiet night. Was there a plan about the next day involving the boat or was there a discussion about it?……Yes, they were going to work on the boat the next day. Yes……There was a little bit of problem with the engine and I think Bob wanted to do some electrical wiring, so that was the plan, that they would go down the next day. And the next day was Australia Day, wasn't it?……That's right. th January…….Mm. Did you see Bob that day?……Yes, I saw Bob that morning. I got up about seven to make a cup of coffee and he was in the kitchen, so just said good morning. I took my coffee, I went back to bed to relax. I was very - physically very tired after the day before, so - Yes…….And I was on holiday so I was relaxing, I wasn't going with them. No. Was there a discussion concerning what would happen with you later in the day?……A discussion about what? All right, were you expecting to be at home all day on your own or were you expecting someone to come back for you?……No, no, Sue said she was going down to the boat with Bob and that she wanted to take me for lunch to the Yacht club, where I hadn't been before. Yeah.…….So she arranged to pick me up about eleven, eleven thirty, which she did. Yes. And did you then go down with her?…….We went down to have lunch. To the yacht - yes.…….Yes. And did you drive down?…….Yes. And when you got to the yacht club what was on for lunch?…….We were disappointed it was meat pies and that was all. So we decided to have it anyway.


Fair enough - and sauce. …….Yes, mm. Did you have that at the yacht club itself - the pie -…….I'm sorry?

Did you have the pie at the yacht club itself; that is did you - did you sit up on the deck of the yacht club or whatever you -…….Oh no, we sat in the dining room near the bar, yes. The dining room - thank you. Could you see the Four Winds, the boat, from - from there?…….No, I - I couldn't, and I wasn't looking for it. No.…….I didn't - I didn't think it was close, no. No. Okay. And after your frugal lunch, where - did you go somewhere?…….No, we took photos of each other outside near the marina. Yes.…….And then we came back home. Okay. …….To Allison Street, mm. Was there an arrangement made for you for the afternoon?…….Yes, I was going to Bruny Island - Yes.…….- my niece had a shack there and I was going to spend two days with my ex-sister-in-law, my niece's mother, and my niece's children. Right. Do you recall what time you got back to Allison Street after the lunch at the yacht club, or the lunch that wasn't?…….Yeah, we got back between half past twelve and ten to one. Right. And what time were you going to be picked up?…….At three thirty. Okay. Did Sue stay with you until then or did she go?…….No, she changed - I - I know she changed but I was in my room sort of thinking about what I was going to pack and then she said goodbye and left about - I think about one thirty. Okay, thank you. Now you mentioned you took pictures of each other, did you also take photographs on the yacht the day before, I mean on the yacht?……Yes, Bob took a photo of me and I took a photo of him.


Yes. And did you make those photographs, the photographs you've spoken of, at and on the yacht and at the yacht club the 26th, did you make them available to police?……To the police? Yes…….Yes, yes. Okay. I'll show you - if you could play this CD, please, and tell us if they are the photographs you took?....The first photograph I took as we were approaching - Yes, we don't seem to have got it up on the screen yet. Oh, thank you……Yes. Yes, thank you. Yes, getting closer?……Took two photographs approaching. Approaching in the dinghy, the inflatable dinghy……I took that photo of Bob. Another photo - Yeah, is that Bob?……Yes. Yes……And he took one of me. Yes……He didn't like that one so he took another one. That's a close up…….That's the photo I took of Sue outside the Yacht Club. Yes, and that's a close up of that photo. Could you just go back to the last one? So is that a closer view of the photograph before it rather than a new photograph. Thank you. Right, thank you, I have hard copies for the jury, your Honour, whenever it's convenient.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now these go in the blue folders behind tab 6.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, please, your Honour, that's right. I tender the CD, your Honour, and the photographs.



MR ELLIS SC: - So to recap if we could, on the 26th of January, you saw Robert briefly in the morning, Sue picked you up at about eleven


thirty, you went to the yacht club, you went back again, Sue left you at about, I think you said one thirty?…….One thirty, yes. About that - and you were picked up to go to Bruny Island at about three thirty?…….Three thirty, mm. Thank you. Now you haven't seen your brother Robert since then, have you?…….No. Or heard from him?…….No. Thank you. The next day, the 27th of July did -

HIS HONOUR: January?

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Oh thank you, January 2009, did your niece receive some news?…….Yes, we were on the beach in the morning and we didn't receive the news until about midday, or it could have been two o'clock, I'm not sure about that. And as a result of that did you go in - back to Hobart when you could?…….Yes, we packed up quickly and went direct to the ferry and I think we - we just missed a ferry, but I think we took one around about five, and then we - the ferry - we took the - Yvonne - we all drove to Kate's home where Yvonne stayed with the children, so that Greg and Kate, my niece, and I could go down to the wharf. Right. And, to cut it short, I suppose, these terrible events, that Robert was missing and the boat had tried to be sunk?…….Mm. Okay. For the next few days did you stay in Tasmania staying at Allison Street still?…….Yes, I was due to go back in two days but I changed my flight back and stayed probably another week. Right. And during - I'm sorry - during that time I expect there were many discussions about what may have happened and what had happened?……Yes. Yes, of course, mm. Ms Neill-Fraser of course was a participant in those discussions?……Yes. Now you went back to Sydney, do you recall the date that -…….Yes, I returned eventually to Sydney, yes. Were you in - after you returned were you in telephone contact with Ms Neill-Fraser?……Yes.


Was that quite frequent?……More frequent than normal because at that stage I was supporting her. Normally I would only be in touch perhaps every two or three weeks - Yes…….- with them, but in this case quite frequent phone calls, yes, between us. Do you recall a call, a telephone call with her on about the 8th or 10th March?……Yes, mm. And what is it that you can recall of that call?……She told me that she had received a phone call from a Richard King, who was a friend of my niece, Claire's. That was on the evening of - it must have been the 26th. The 26th was Australia Day, would it have been that? The 26th was the day Bob disappeared?……That's right, yes. Was it the day before or the day, 26th?……I'm a bit confused now. No, I've confused you, I'm sorry, you were right……It was the first night I was away, so that was the twenty - yes, it was Australia Day.6th, yes…….The evening when I was in Bruny Island - Yes…….- Sue was home on her own, - Yes……- received a call from Richard King. Now she told me in the phone call that she had driven down - she couldn't sleep, that she was disturbed by the phone call, a bit anxious. She drove down to Sandy Bay and looked across at the boat but it was in darkness, so she drove back. Right. Now had you heard that from her or heard that before, that she had driven down that evening to Sandy Bay?……No, I believe that was the first - I'm very sure that was the first I heard of it, mm. Right. Did you have another telephone call from her - or with her, I'm sorry, not necessarily from her, with her on the 23rd of March?…….Yes, yes. And what can you recall of that call?…….Oh, all I recall of that conversation was that she told me that she had not driven back that she had walked back, and I was -


Walked back from Sandy Bay?…….From Sandy Bay - Following the call from King?…….- walked back to West Hobart. Yeah, still following the call from Richard King?…….Sorry? This is still the evening -…….Yes, yes. - following the call from Richard King?…….Yes. Yes.…….I was surprised and - that she would walk back all that way at night - Yes.…….- around twelve or one or whenever it was. Yes.…….Mm. Did she say why she'd walked back - did you ask her about it?…….Yes, I - I - because I was surprised and asked her why she said that she wanted the - the exercise. Right. So this is - this is at (indistinct word) - just to be clear, I'm not sure we are clear, that she had driven down but walked back - …….Yes, and left the car. Okay. …….Mm. Right. Whereas before she had told you, when you didn't know that she had gone down at all, she'd told you she'd driven down looked and driven back?…….Yes. Now she told you that she'd driven down and walked back and left - …….Yes. - left the car down there?…….Yes. Okay. And was that call in the morning - did that call take place in the morning?…….Yes, I think it was around ten thirty in the morning of the 23rd. That's right, and you were in Sydney?…….Yes, mm. And was it in the afternoon that you were visited by Tasmanian Detectives -…….Yes, yes. - as it happened - thank you. If it please the Court.




HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Can I just come back to the conversation that you had with Ms Neill-Fraser on the 23rd of March and she told you she'd walked back to 5 West Hobart, which means she must have left the car down at the waterfront - correct - it logically follows?…….Yes, mm. Is it possible what she told was confused, in the sense you've reversed the sequence, that she walked down and drove back - think about it very carefully please?……No, I don't remember, no. You don't remember now. By that do I take it to mean you're not sure whether what you said to Mr Ellis a moment ago was the correct sequence or not?……I'm very sure that was the correct sequence, yes. Is it possible, and please think about this carefully, that you have got the sequence wrong?……Well if I'd got it wrong she would have had to have walked down and back. If she'd walked - left the car there earlier and walked down and got the car and gone back that would explain it wouldn't it? You see the car was there the next morning at their home.

MR ELLIS SC: Well I don't know whether Mr Gunson -

WITNESS: The car was there the next morning -

MR ELLIS SC: - was there -

MR GUNSON SC: If you -

HIS HONOUR: Just a minute, just a minute.

MR ELLIS SC: If he's arguing with the witness, putting a proposition to her, he's not a witness himself, in my submission he should be -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): If - if the car was at Allison Street the next morning when Ms Neill-Fraser got the call from the police to tell her that the boat was sinking it had to obviously have been returned to the house, correct. Now - …..Yes, but she -


Go on…..- she definitely told me that she had walked back, that's very clear in my mind. All right, thank you…..Because I was shocked that it was late at night. And it sounded extraordinarily strange to you that she'd walked home?……Well, yes, I thought it was dangerous at that time of night. And it sounded - it must have been strange for you to think that she left the car down there?……Yes. Mmm…….Mmm. All right, thank you. But in the earlier conversation, the one you told us about that preceded this one, it was either on the 8th or theth, explained that she got the call from Mr King late in the evening on the 26th……Yes. Said she couldn't sleep, was disturbed by the call and anxious and went down, that's correct?……Drove down and drove back, yes. Thank you. Now you've known Ms Neill-Fraser for how long?……Since the time perhaps a few months after she met my brother. Right. And is it fair to say this, that you would see her a couple of times a year every year?……Yes. And on most occasions you came to Tasmania you spent time with your brother and Ms Neill-Fraser?……Yes. And this was a pattern over some, what, eighteen odd years?……No, it was certainly since 2001, because we lived in Ecuador from '96 to000. All right, and you didn't travel from Ecuador to Tasmania in that time?……No. All right. So at least from 2001 onwards you had a -……Yes. - pattern of some seven years of visiting?……Yes. Twice a year for about a week or ten days at a time?……Yes. And you'd stay at Allison Street?……Yes, mm.


And during that time you've had plenty of time to observe your brother with her and you've seen them together in all sorts of situations?……I couldn't say all sorts of situations because Robert was usually at work a 5 nd Sue and I - she'd take me out to different places, we were out every day. We might go to her property and spend the day or we might just go out shopping or anywhere. I saw Robert in the evenings. And when they were- and on weekends presumably?……Yes, yes. And you have said in the past that Robert and Sue seemed very supportive - supportive of and devoted to each other?……Yes, that was my observation.

Yes. And you said, "As far a I know they've never had serious arguments, but would give their point of view and disagree on things"?.......Yes. Quite a normal relationship?……Yes, that's how it appeared to me. And when you were in Tasmania at the beginning of 2009 that was still your impression, wasn't it?……Yes. And when you were out on the boat with them there appeared to you to be a good supportive relationship?……Yes, that was a happy day, they were - there were no arguments. No. Sue, I think you said, helped your brother with the problems with the anchor chain that had developed?……Yes, because he couldn't pull it out himself, it needed two people to unravel. I was further back in the boat, I wasn't watching closely - Yes.…….- but it was very difficult and they realised they'd have to buy a spare part, mm. You also have said that Robert was, in your opinion, was fit enough to manage the boat and was a fit man for his age?…….He was fit but he was not experienced. Mm.…….That was the first, as far as I'm concerned, that was the first day he'd been out and it was hands on for him. Yeah. And Sue was giving him some instruction on the boat as they went along?…….Yes, yes.


Yes, thank you.…….But - yes. And I think you've also said that during the trip, either two or from Adventure Bay, that Robert was showing Sue how to use the navigator to find the position?…….The hand held navigator, yes. Right. And that was sort of what, instruction by him to her on how to use this thing?…….Mm hm. Correct?…….Yes. All right. You use to work for Wormalds International, is that right?…….Yes, yes. And that was the - the arm of Wormald that did work with fire extinguishers or another part of the company?…….Well I was secretary to the manager who - he was instrumental in bringing out the jaws of life and he - it was fire prevention really. All right. And you were anxious to see whether there were adequate fire extinguishers onboard the Four Winds, weren't you?…….Yes, yes. And you looked around for extinguishers?…….Yes - well I only really noticed one, it was a small one. Yes. And it was near the stairs?…….Thinking if every I had to use it, I knew where it was. All right. …….And it was right beside the stairs - that was the only one I really noticed. Is it fair to say this, that you wanted to make sure that you were safe on the boat, because you asked about the radio and how to use that, didn't you?…….Yes, yes. All right. Did you actually look around for any other extinguishers or just saw one and was satisfied?…….No, I didn't, after I'd seen that one I knew there was one there and it was in a central position and I didn't look any further. All right. But you had a good look around the boat, and I think you've said in the past, that you looked at all the ropes and they seemed to be very neat and in order?…….Well it was just a casual glance, I'm - I'm -


But you were on the boat for some hours?…….I've never been on boats before, I'm not really that interested, so I - but nothing was amiss, there was nothing dangling. Yes. There weren't piles of ropes lying on the deck?……Definitely not, no. No. And ropes seemed to be hanging on what they call cleats, sort of hooky things on the mast and things like that, right?……Mmm. Okay, that's right?……They were all in order, yes. Thank you. Is it correct that the - after this trip to Bruny Island you came back to Sandy Bay went ashore by the dinghy, correct?……Yes. And went home. The dinghy didn't go home did it? They left the dinghy - …..No, they left it there because they intended coming down the next morning. Right. Where did they leave it?……Well I was looking out to sea I wasn't really looking at what they were doing but there was some - there was a railing and some rocks there. Yes, railings?……I think there were some railings, some rocks, or stones, and then a railing. I'm not too clear on this. Well did you come into the marina or did you come into the little beach?……No, we came into the shore. Could the witness be shown P40 please?

HIS HONOUR: So these are Constable Needham's photos at the back of the large folder?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour. (Resuming): Have a look at the first photos that are there, Ms Sanchez will you. Does that appear to depict the area where the dinghy was left?……Yes. That's where you think it was left?……I think it was left there. You know where the yacht club is where you had dinner the following day - ……Yes. - and there's a wharf along there - it wasn't left along there?……It's possible. I'm sorry, I don't remember.


Are you sure it was left overnight or taken home?……Yeah, it was left overnight, yes. You're in no doubt about that?……Sorry? You're in no doubt about that?……Yes. Didn't strike you as strange that it'd be left down on the beach, nice outboard, nice dinghy?……(No audible reply). I want to suggest it went home on the back of the trailer?……No, I don't think so. You've got some doubt now, haven't you?……Yes, I have. Yes, so you're not as sure now, are you?……Not now, no. No, thank you…….No. All right, thank you. Now the next morning - I'm sorry, that night presumably the three of you had dinner at home?……Yes. And there was nothing unusual about Bob and Sue that night?……No. And next morning you saw Bob briefly?……Yes. And he seemed well, there was obviously no problems?……No. Nothing going on between he and Sue that you knew about?……Certainly not that I was aware of, I - there was no evidence of it. And you spent a significant amount of time that day with Sue, she came and got you and took you down for lunch?……Yes. Yes, for lunch, yes. Yes, and she'd gone off in the morning and said she was going to yacht?……Yes. Came home?……Yes. And you had lunch at the yacht club and she seemed well, correct?……Yes. She seemed happy?……Yes.


And dropped you back home and departed about one thirty, I think?……Yes, yes. And again she was quite happy?……Yes. Right. Bob liked a drink?………….Yes, he always liked a drink in the evening. And I think you've said in the past, it was his habit to have a beer and about three quarters of a bottle of wine in the evenings when at home?…….Yes, he'd come home from work and have a glass of beer and then he would have, probably, I would say, average of three quarters of a bottle of wine. Thank you. …….Mm. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson - Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: I don't re-examine, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, Mrs Sanchez, you're free to go.

WITNESS: Thank you.



MR ELLIS SC: I call Craig Stockdale, your Honour - volume 2 page ?

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes?

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Your Craig Stephen Stockdale?…….Yes. You're a Constable in Tasmania Police Service?…….Yes. Stationed at Hobart Uniform Branch still?…….Yes. And were you so stationed on the 27th of January last year?…….Yes. And at 7:00am were you given a task to do?…….Yes. What was that?……To attend Marieville Esplanade in relation to a yacht sinking. Were you working with another constable?……Yes, Constable Shane Etherington. Thank you. Did you go there?……Yes. Were you far away when you got the call to go there?……Hobart Station. So you were there in ten minutes later?……Max, yeah. What did you see when you got there?……Looked out into the Derwent and - where the yachts are moored and there was a yacht sinking slightly. Had you been called to a sinking yacht before?……No. Right. Did you speak to someone?……Yes, spoke to Daryl Balding, who was involved in rowing down there, and asked him to take me out to the boat on his yacht. And did he?……Yeah, he did, yep.


Yeah, what did you go out in?……A little dinghy type thing with an outboard motor. Did Constable Etherington go too?……No. Okay, just the two of you?……Yes. And when you got out to this boat about how far from shore was it?……Approximately three hundred metres. Okay. We know the name of it was the Four Winds, did you take note of that?……Yes. Okay. Did you go on board?……Yes. With Mr Balding, what did you see?……Once I got on board, went to where the door is to the wheelhouse, had a look inside. What did you see inside?……First thing I saw was a knife on the - on the floor - Yeah……..- as you enter the wheelhouse there. On the three steps walking down there I observed some blood and then further up the boat there was - further up the yacht there was some water engulfing the yacht. Right, so you could see it actually stepping into it yourself, is that right?……Yes, yes. Could the witness be shown P3, please.

HIS HONOUR: That's the first set of photos in the thick folder.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. So would you have a look at photo 21 there, please, constable? Do they appear to be the steps upon which you saw blood?…….Yes. But are they in the same position as when you saw it?…….No, they've been moved. Thank you. Now if you look at photograph 22 and 23, is that the blood as you saw it, or as - or do you believe there's been some change from you seeing it and the photograph being taken?…….Well when I first saw it there's been a slight alteration but not a lot. No, what sort of -…….Yeah -


What seems to have happened?…….It seems like - well I know what's happened, there was water from the Marine Police, they've tried to step over it and there's - there was a couple of drops that got water into it, so it's spread. So it's been diluted with water?…….Diluted, yeah. When - when you saw it, it wasn't?…….No. No. They were fresh - well I perhaps shouldn't say fresh - they were spots of blood?…….Yeah. Okay. Now did - when you went onboard did you expect to find someone onboard or had you been told anything about the status of anyone being onboard?…….No one knew if there was anyone onboard, so I had no idea. Now you've told us about the steps, I think I might have cut you off, what else did you see - anything?…….I saw a yellow torch. Yeah.…….Which was located on the right hand side as it - as you enter the - into the wheelhouse. Yes.…….And on - there was some blood located on the - on that torch. Okay. Anything else?…….No. No. No other object that you saw on the floor?…….No. Okay. Photograph 17, while you've got them there in that set, is that the torch that you refer to?…….Yes. And just go back to the photograph before, 16, there's the torch, was there anything else there?………Talking about a knife? Yeah……Yeah. Do you see that?……Yeah. You said that I'm not told, I was too busy finding photographs. So you saw the knife, you saw the torch, did you see any person?……No. Right. Did you call out?……Yes, I went down and did - went as far as I could and I called out but no one answered.


Did the - did you see any footprints anywhere?……No. What about on the deck, any there?……None on the deck at all. Right. And you noticed a key somewhere?……In the ignition. And did you notice a set of glasses?……Yes. What did you do then, did you stay on board or - …..Stayed on board and I radioed for marine police to come and assist me. Okay. Did marine police come and assist you?……Yes. And do you remember what time it was that they turned up?……Not exactly, it would be in my notebook. Okay, was it a long time, was it - …..Um, twenty to thirty minutes approximately. Well you made a note reasonably contemporaneously did you?……Yes. May he have leave to refresh his memory, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Any objection, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, look at your notes.

WITNESS: Ten minutes.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Sorry?……Ten minutes.

Ten minutes. So what time was it that they came?……7:25. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: You said you radioed did you use the vessel's radio or a different radio?

WITNESS: Radio, police radio.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, go on, Mr Ellis.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. (Resuming): So the marine police - do you know the name of the marine police who turned up?……Chris Lawler. Yes. And did other people turn up as well to the scene?……Yes. Where were they from, where were they from?……Can I check my note? If you can't remember…….Yeah. If his Honour gives leave.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No objection.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, have a look.

WITNESS: In relation to the police officers that arrived with the forensics, with Constable Lawler, was Ben Cunningham and the skipper was Craig Jackman.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Were you present on board when Constable Lawler found something?…….No. Or located - or did something to something onboard?…….Oh - not. Okay. Now there was a lot of water there, did anything - was anything found in your presence that might have explained the presence of that water?…….I didn't see anything - explained. All right. The - did the steps that you'd seen to have blood, you've said that they've been moved in the photograph, did you see them being moved?…….Yes. Who by?…….That was by Chris - that was by Chris Lawler. Okay. …….And it was at my request. Right. All right. Now at 11:50am that morning did you go somewhere?…….Sorry - sorry? :50am -…….Yeah. - did you go somewhere?…….Yes.


Where was that?…….7 Allison Street in West Hobart. In order to see someone?…….Yes. Who was that?…….The defendant. Yeah, sure - the defendant, Sue Neill - Neill-Fraser?…….Yes. Did you obtain from her a statement?…….Yes. And I'll show you this document please? Is that it?…….That's it. Now how was that statement obtained, did you - was it just dictated out in a - screed to you?…….Yeah, we sat down in the - in the loungeroom area, or kitchen/dining room area, and then she - she dictated it to me, yeah. Okay. And were you - no, never mind - when was it finished?…….1:00pm. Right. Was there any preliminary talk about what you wanted the statement to cover, what you were asking about?…….Yeah, I just - I just wanted to - to - to find out her relationship with - with Robert, and then details of the yacht, when she's last seen him - Yes……When was the last time she spoke to him, any contact at all just so we can ascertain, yeah. Okay. Did you ask any general questions at the end, you know, is there anything more you can think of, or anything like that?……Yes. Okay, and I take it the answer was no by the time you're both happy with it?……Yes. And she signed it?……She did, yes. Having read it through?……Yes, yes. Yes, I tender that, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: I seek to read it, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Now constable, did you ask how Ms Neill-Fraser knew that these - that the pump cover had been opened and an electrical thing had been opened - electrical cupboard had been opened?…….Yeah, we - we had a long discussion and she - she appeared to have an intimate knowledge of the boat. Right. …….And so she knew where - where everything was on the boat. But did she say that she had found it opened or had deduced from some other condition of it that it was opened?…….I don't recall. You don't recall - okay. Thank you, I've nothing further.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR ELLIS SC: Oh sorry, I think I have - oh of course, yes. (Resuming): Did you notice anything about Ms Neill-Fraser's left hand while you were with at Allison Street?…….She - she had a cut on her left thumb. And when you say a cut?…….Well she had a bandaid on her left thumb. Yeah.…….I asked her to show it to me and she peeled off the bandaid and revealed a one to two centimetre cut - Right. …….- on her left thumb. And she was also holding her arm slightly as well but - Okay. Did she say anything in connection with the - with the cut, that you can recall?…….She said she'd done it recently but she - but I can't recall exactly how she did it. Right. Did it appear recent to you?…….Yes, it did. Thank you.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: You didn't ask her how the cut had been caused?……I may have, but I don't recall. And you didn't ask her when she did it?……Yes, I did. Did you get an answer?……Yes. Did you say, "When did you do this"?........Oh she just said, "Recently", but I didn't ask her the hour or the time. Are you absolutely sure about that?……Yes. I asked you that because it doesn't appear in your proof, does it?……No. It doesn't, does it?……No. No. You'd gone to the house on what you believed was a missing person matter, correct?……Yes. You were cross-examined earlier this year by me in the Magistrates' Court about your recollections, weren't you?……Yes. And you didn't volunteer down there, did you, that she had said she had done the injury to her hand or thumb recently?

MR ELLIS SC: Well that's not entirely fair, these are preliminary proceedings and for a witness to volunteer something is quite misleading.


MR ELLIS SC: He was cross-examined by Mr Gunson and unless my learned friend can point to a question whereby he asked that question it's unfair to suggest to the witness that he's not volunteered it because he has no opportunity to volunteer things he's not asked.

HIS HONOUR: Well look, the jury understand that now. What's the answer, did you say anything about it at the Magistrates' Court, Constable? MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): You didn't, did you?……About what?


About her saying that the injury had occurred recently?……No. You didn't, and it doesn't appear in any of your statements?……Yes. Correct?……Yes. If I suggested to you that you have invented this you no doubt would deny it, would you?……Yes. And it doesn't appear in any of the notes you made at the time does it?……No. And in fact it wasn't until March 2009 that you even record seeing an alleged injury on her finger?……No. Right. Well you made a statutory declaration on the 27th January setting out your observations of that day didn't you?……Yes. And that doesn't have any information in it at all about a band-aid on her finger does it?……No. And you'd agree it wasn't till the 20th March of 2009 that you made a further statement when you revealed this memory?……Yes. Which has now increased?……Yes. And you don't find that strange at all?……Well I was taking a missing person's statement. No, you don't find it strange that your memory of what occurred on the 27th January at Allison Street appears to continue to improve with the passage of time?……I don't find it strange. Right. Now - because I'm going to suggest to you that she did not say to you the word 'recently' because if she had it's something you would have noted down and thought was relevant wouldn't you?……Not necessarily, no. You went on board the boat with the gentleman who you told us about, Mr Balding?……Yes. And you said you saw a carving knife on the wheelhouse floor and you've also said in the past, "It appeared as though it didn't have any blood on it"?......Yes.


Right. And you also said that you - in the past, 'That you only saw blood on the second and third step leading to the middle of the vessel"?......Yes. Now is that the second set of stairs into the vessel or the first set? You come down the first step into the pilothouse……Yeah. You're in the pilothouse where the wheel is, the internal wheel is, and then you go down into the vessel which steps are you referring to?……As you've just stated. The ones down into the saloon?……No, no. The ones coming from the deck into the pilothouse?……I don't have a knowledge of boats so - from the deck into the wheelhouse so the first set or steps. Right. And you recognise that - or you recall that there was another set of steps that take you further down into the boat?…….The ones that we used in the photo a minute ago. Let's me quite clear about this; you said when you arrived in the wheel - you looked into the wheelhouse and you observed the steps with blood?…….Can I - Yes, do you see those in the photo?…….Yeah, those - those steps there, I'm talking about. Well they're the internal steps?…….These steps are the ones that go from the - the deck down where the wheelhouse is. Right. And they'd been moved down into the wheelhouse - downstairs - in that photograph they're not in their original place, are they?…….No. No. All right. …….They hadn't been moved, no, they'd been moved sideways. All right. Thank you. You said to Mr Ellis that you didn't see any footprints on the deck, were you looking for footprints specifically on the deck?…….Not specifically. Right. So what you're really saying when you say that is, 'I didn't - I don't recall having seen any footsteps that were obvious but I wasn't looking for any'?…….I didn't see any footsteps.


Well you're not - you didn't go over the whole boat looking for them, on the deck, did you - you didn't walk the whole fifty three feet of the boat?…….No. No. …….Well that's not true, sorry, I - I did walk all the way around the boat, I didn't see any footsteps. Were you looking for footprints - footsteps?…….I was looking for anything. Just concentrate on the questions - were you looking for footprints on the deck?…….I wouldn't say I was looking specifically for footprints, but I was looking for anything that's going to help me. All right. Did you - did you notice any ropes on the boat lying on the deck at all?…….Not specifically just general yachts - ropes. Are you a yachting type?…….No. Right. So your knowledge of yachts is limited, is it?…….Yes. Have you ever sailed on a yacht?…….Yes. A yacht this size?…….Yes. Right. And do you know that generally speaking, people who operate yachts properly keep the ropes neat and tidy so people don't fall over them?…….Yeah, I guess so. Mm hm. Now thinking back, for instance, do you remember any ropes running from the top of the wheelhouse down inside the boat?……I didn't note it, no. Well if there'd been ropes when you got on board the boat going down into the wheelhouse you'd remember that?……I don't know. You don't know?……Well I don't know. I find it - have a look at photograph - could the witness be shown P9, photo 72 and 73, -

HIS HONOUR: So these are the -

MR GUNSON SC: - 74 -


HIS HONOUR: These are the second set of photos you've got, ladies and gentlemen, behind tab 2.

MR GUNSON SC: - and 75, and 70 and 71. (Resuming): Now you're goi 5 ng to be given two more Constable, and please just take your time for a minute, will you, just take your time and look through these photographs. You can probably orientate yourself by looking at photograph 72, and while you're looking at photograph 72 do you see there the hatchway to the yacht?……Yes. And we see some stairs there, so there's no doubt about this, they are the stairs to which you were referring when you referred to the blood, is that right?……On 72? Yep…….There's no stairs there. You recognise the area, don't you?……Yes. It's the way into the yacht, isn't it?……Yes. To the left you can just see the door, can't you?……Yes. The half hatch that's there?……Yes. Now I'll come back to the stairs that I asked you about a moment ago. Where you saw the blood, was it on those stairs or the ones that go down into the body of the boat? Is my question causing you some difficulties?…….Yeah. All right. …….Can I have a look at the other pictures? Yes, certainly. …….So go ahead with the question again, please? Sorry?…….Can you ask me the question again, please? Certainly can; look at the bottom of photograph 72 please?…….Yes. Do you see there the top of some stairs, as you look into the wheelhouse, or sometimes referred to as the pilothouse?…….That's - that's only stair - it's part of the boat, it's not the stairs. Right. No, no, then you look further into the boat -…….Right. - there's the saloon, isn't there, that's the larger area?…….Yeah.


MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, I think my learned friend and I might need to take a minute of leave that - well when the evidence is looked as to when these photos are taken - they don't purport to be contemporaneous of the time that Constable Stockdale was on board. Now I hesitate to object but-

HIS HONOUR: Well that - that - well I'm aware of that. I expect Mr Gunson is aware of that.

MR GUNSON SC: Perfectly aware of it.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh, all right.

MR GUNSON SC: I'm just simply trying to establish which stairs he was referring to in his evidence - because I don't follow it. (Resuming): Now, look at photo 72 and look at the bottom, do you see the top of a stair there?…….Yes. Right. Then you see a floor directly in front of that, do you see that?…….Yeah. Then in front of that we can see an area of the cabin below?…….Right - yes. To get to the cabin below there are more stairs - and I'm just trying to establish which stairs you saw the blood on - the top ones or did you go into the wheelhouse and look down and see blood on the stairs going down into the main cabin?…….The top ones but they're not there in the photo. Thank you. I'm still lost - assuming somebody's put them back in the right place -…….Yeah. - right, they're the ones you saw blood on?…….Well you're asking me if they're the stairs, well they're not the stairs because they're not there. I'm completely lost. When you got on the boat were there stairs there?…….Yes. Mm, and was there blood on them?…….Yes. Thank you. Now you see in photograph 72 there - if you look at the bottom you'll see a rope going down over the stairs - if you look at the top of the photograph coming down over the wheelhouse into the


bottom cabin there's a rope and the first rope I refer to appears to trail across the deck or the floor, do you see that?……Yes, yes. Were ropes like that when you got on that boat?……I don't believe so, no. Thank you. And you can't explain why they're like that in the photographs?……I can't.


MR GUNSON SC: I take that back. (Resuming): Now have a look at - just before we do that have a look again please at photo 72, do you see that bundle of rope lying there to the right of the photograph underneath a blue - ……Yes. Do you remember that bundle of rope being there when you got on the boat?……No. Thank you. Could the witness be shown P3 please?

HIS HONOUR: So that's the first set of photos in your big folder, ladies and gentlemen.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Have a look at photo 9, now this was taken that morning out on the yacht……Yes. Do you see the bundle of rope there on the deck to which I've referred which seems to go up to a winch?……Yes. And did you remember seeing that bundle of rope like that on the winch?……Didn't really notice it, no. All right. And if you look at photo number 3 please - I'm sorry, 7, have a look at - got photo 7 - ……7. Have a look at the bottom of the main mast there, there's a great pile of rope there and a piece appears to be going into a hatch running along the top of the deck there and a piece appears to be coming from a winch on the main mast. Do you remember seeing that at the time?……Didn't notice it was out of ordinary. No, so you didn't notice any of those things?……Well they're ropes on a boat, so - And you didn't see anything unusual about them?……No.


I see. All right. You went and saw Ms Neill-Fraser at her home at Allison Street in West Hobart, I think you said about eleven thirty, is that right?……Approximately. Does your note book reveal the time you arrived?……It'd be on top of the statement. Right. I asked you does your note book reveal the time that you arrived?……No. The statement says it commenced at 11:50 and it doesn't give a concluding time, does your note book reveal the time that the statement concluded?……I believe the statement does. Not on the copy I have. Perhaps the original can be handed to me, please. Well the copy I've got, Constable, certainly - this is the original, certainly doesn't show a time it concluded……I believe it does. I'll show you if you like. Like to look at that and check?

MR ELLIS SC: Top right hand corner of the first page.


MR ELLIS SC: Top right hand corner of the first page.

MR GUNSON SC: Top right hand corner of -

MR ELLIS SC: First page.

MR GUNSON SC: Oh thank you, thank you. (Resuming): 1:00 p.m., thank you. All right, so you finished it at 1:00 p.m. You're not suggesting that in an hour and ten minutes there was just a constant dictation by Ms Neill-Fraser to you, rather I suggest there would've been questions by you and she answered them and you put them into narrative form? Do you understand what I mean by narrative form, telling a story?……Yes. Yeah. What are you asking? I'm asking you did she sit there and dictate, "I have been in a de facto relationship with Robert Adrian Chappell for seventeen to eighteen years", or did you say, for instance, "What is your relationship with Mr Chappell?" and she would have said, "I've been in a de facto relationship for eight - seventeen -…….Yes.


And you would write down, "I have been in a de facto relationship" - correct?…….Yes. And sim 5 ilarly, for instance, when there was the question in the statement about knives or guns and things like that, presumably you said to her, something like, "Were there any knives or firearms on the boat"?…….Yes, correct. And she said, "No they weren't" and presumably you said, "Did you see any blood on the boat before you left?" and she said, "No"?…….Yes. So it was really a question and answer put into narrative form?…….Yes. Thank you. And she at that time, I suggest, was obviously upset?.......Not obviously, no. But she appeared, I suggest to you, to be very concerned?…….No. You just found her to be a normal person telling you all of this when she's been told that her partner is missing - or you didn't take any notice?

MR ELLIS SC: Well that's a different question - he was first questioned about her appearance, he's answered that, and now it's an argument, in my submission.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Gunson is entitled to put a different question.

MR ELLIS SC: If it please.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Did - I'll put it another way - was she by herself?…….No. Who was with her?…….Family members. Who?…….I don't know. Didn't ask?…….Well I asked at the time, but I didn't note it down. You didn't put in your police notebook?…….No.


No - you were there as part of a missing person inquiry and treated it as such?…….Yes. Right. Thank you. I have no further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. It was put to you that you didn't recall being shown the cut until the 20th of March 2009 when you made a statutory declaration about it. On the evening of the 27th of January 2009, did you in fact telephone some person?…….Yeah, I telephoned Detective Sergeant Conroy to inform him that I didn't put the cut in my statement because it was concerning me. Thank you. I've nothing further, thank you, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: The jury can make their affirmation and the Court will then adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.




Table of Contents

<MARISSA MILAZZO CALLED AND SWORN .................... 278

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 278

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 289

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 309

<RULING - HIS HONOUR: ................................................ 317

<KRISS ELLISON LAWLER CALLED AND SWORN ON THE VOIRE DIRE................................................................. 319

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 319

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 321

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC.................................................... 323


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC ...................................................... 324

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 334


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ..................................................... 338

<XXN - MR GUNSON: ..................................................... 341


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 343

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC ................................................. 347

<KIM EISZELE CALLED AND SWORN ............................. 349

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ..................................................... 349

<KIM CARTWRIGHT CALLED AND SWORN ..................... 351

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 351


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 353 DARYL JOHN BALDING CALLED AND SWORN ................. 359

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC:..................................................... 359

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 363


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 364

<RODNEY HOWARD CALLED AND SWORN...................... 367

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO ...................................................... 367

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 368


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 370

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 375 Exhibit List


EXHIBIT #P46 - SEACOCK............................................... 328

EXHIBIT #P47 - PHOTOGRAPH OF SEACOCK COMPARTMENT ................................................................................ 330

EXHIBIT #P48 - PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY NATHAN KRAKOWIAK ............................................................. 344

EXHIBIT #P49 - CD CONTAINING ELECTRONIC COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS........................................................... 344


EXHIBIT #P51 - CD OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF TAKEN BY MR EISZELE .................................................................... 349

EXHIBIT #P52 - PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY KIM CARTWRIGHT ................................................................................ 351 EXHIBIT P53 - CD OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY KIM CARTWRIGHT ............................................................ 351



HIS HONOUR: Counsel- my associate, I believe she's discussed this with you, she's received information from a juror that he's remembered that he went to school with Katherine Chappell and that Timothy Chappell was some years ahead of him at school. Now that's about all I know. The question is what, if anything, should we do about - or should I do about that? Mr Ellis, do you have any submissions?

MR ELLIS SC: I submit you should acknowledge that the information has been passed on and if that's the extent of it, do nothing further.

HIS HONOUR: Well I should, I suppose, I don't know which juror it is - I suppose we should get the - oh, we do that information, do we - well, I could the - should I get the whole jury in and have that discussion that so that there's no mystery?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, I think so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, any submissions?

MR GUNSON SC: I think that's desirable, your Honour. But my preliminary view is that we need to know more about merely going to school with Kate Chappell, it may be that they were in the same class and it may be that they were not. Whether they were friends at the time would be a relevant matter. I just express amazement that this has happened, given that your Honour read out the identities of witnesses and so forth, but there we be.


MR GUNSON SC: And we have the fallback position of having two other jurors.



MR GUNSON SC: I think we need more information, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: I don't intend to assume without singling out and cross-examining the juror that he's volunteered the information that is relevant. But -


MR ELLIS SC: - if your Honour wanted to make doubly sure of that, the he - that she was a person he went to school with and that - that's the extent of the information and he thinks he might affect his being a juror, then there it is.

HIS HONOUR: Well - all right, well the name of the juror is Brian Holding. I think, I've at least got to ask whether he - whether he considers that he can still be impartial. But it's a bit more than that; if - if the - well the test is the same test as for the disqualification of a judge, it's a question of whether having regard to the nature of the contact between the individuals a hypothetical observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality.


HIS HONOUR: So it's not just a question of what the juror thinks, it's a question of the objective circumstances, so I'm inclined to think I've got to ask a little more than, "Do you think you can be impartial".

MR ELLIS SC: Perhaps so, but on what's been offered now I can't imagine any judge disqualifying themselves.

HIS HONOUR: No. No. Well I suppose the question is how close has your friendship been since you left school, that's the problem.

MR ELLIS SC: Well that's something you've also got to bear in context, that Ms Chappell's evidence wasn't particularly partisan, she was quite generous in praise, when required, of the accused.


HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well I will ask the juror how close the - how close the friendship or acquaintanceship has been since leaving school and see where that leads. Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: It probably goes further than that and your Honour should ask how close the friendship was at school. I mean everybody has friends at school, some of them we maintain for life, some we don't, we see them every so often and exchange pleasantries. I suppose there's also another way of approach it and ask this rhetorical question and that is, had this been revealed by the juror at the beginning we would have then had the opportunity to consider the position and almost certainly would have challenged him.

HIS HONOUR: Well that opportunity - the opportunity for a preemptory challenge has gone, it's a question of whether he ought to be discharged, and -

MR GUNSON SC: That's a factor that your Honour should address in - or consider in making that decision as to whether he should be discharged, and that is had we known that what approach would we have taken and I suspect the answer is we would have challenged him and, quite frankly, he should have revealed it.

HIS HONOUR: Well sometimes names don't jog memories and faces do. All right, well look, I'll get the jury in and ask Mr Holding some questions.



HIS HONOUR: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry about this late start, I've received information that one of the jurors went to school with one of the witnesses, or two of the witnesses, and I've being discussing with counsel what I should do about that and I think I need to ask that juror some questions. It's Mr Brian Holding, whichever one - could you stand up please, Mr Holding. Now am I right about this, you've realised that you went to school with Katherine Chappell and Timothy Chappell was at the same school some years ahead of you, is that basically it?

JUROR: Yeah, correct.

HIS HONOUR: All right. I want to ask you a couple of questions. Do you believe that - now that you've remembered or realised these things do you believe that you will have any difficulty being impartial in this trial?


HIS HONOUR: Now I need to be a little more inquisitive can you tell me how close your friendship or acquaintanceship with Katherine Chappell has been since you left school?

JUROR: I haven't seen Katherine until today - yesterday in the witness box.

HIS HONOUR: Since you went to school?

JUROR: Since we went to school.

HIS HONOUR: And what about her brother?

JUROR: I couldn't tell you but it would be longer than that.

HIS HONOUR: All right. And when you were at school how close were you to Katherine Chappell?

JUROR: I just knew who she was.

HIS HONOUR: And her brother?

JUROR: Even less.


HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, I'm inclined not to discharge this juror. Gentlemen, is there anything further you want to discuss in the absence of the jury?

MR ELLIS SC: No thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Take a seat Mr Holding. Thank you for that, we have to be careful; we'll proceed. Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. I call Marissa Milazzo please, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Take a seat, constable.

WITNESS: Thank you.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Your full name is Marissa Milazzo?…….Yeah. You're a detective constable in the Tasmanian Police Service?…….That's correct. With the Hobart Criminal Investigation Branch?…….That's correct. And you were so in January of 2009?…….That's correct. So you went - when you went on the 27th of January to Constitution Dock?…….That's correct. At what time of day was that?…….Approximately 2:50pm. Who did you go with?…….Detective Sergeant Simon Conroy. And when you got there did you meet anyone else?…….Yes, when I arrived I met with Detective Wilby and Constable Plunkett. Right. And did you see something there?…….When I arrived I noticed a fifty plus foot yacht and it had the name 'Four Winds' written on it. And did you and the others go on it?…….Yes, I did. And how many went on at that stage, do you remember?…….At that stage I recall myself, Sergeant Conroy, Susan Neill-Fraser, the accused, and her two daughters, Emma Meeker-Fraser and Sarah Bowles. Was that right at the early stage they were there or -……At some stage Tim Chappell got on the boat but I can't be sure if it was at that stage or not. Right. Did Ms Fraser point out anything?……Yes, she pointed out a number of things on the boat that had been disturbed.


Did she actually manipulate anything on board that you saw, or can recall?……Yeah, I recall her touching lots of different things on the boat. Had she been asked not to?……Yes, she had. And after that you left the boat presumably?……That's correct. And did someone else come, or was someone else there in order to do something, I should say?……Yes, at some stage Chris Smith from Cleanlift attended the boat and he fitted a temporary bilge pump to prevent the boat from getting more water coming into it. On - now jumping forward, if you could, on the Thursday the 5th February did you go somewhere?……I did, yes. Where was that?……At approximately 11:50 a.m. that morning and in the company of Detective Senior Constable Sinnitt I attended 7 Allison Street, West Hobart, which is the address of the accused. Thank you, was she there?……She was, yes. Was anyone else there?……Yes, her two daughters were there, Emma and Sarah, and Robert Martin. Right, and did you and Detective Sinnitt speak to her?……Yes, we had a conversation with the accused and I made notes of that conversation. All right, and was Detective Sinnitt also making notes?……He was, yes. And were the - sorry, have you done something to the notes that you made since then?……I've had them typed. Did you check the typing that they were accurate to your original notes?……I have checked that they are accurate. Do you have the typed copy here?……I do, yes. I tender those, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. (Resuming): I want you, if you could please, constable, to read them aloud to the jury and I might ask you to pause at some times -…….Read them all aloud? - to see what you can remember - yes, please.…….Sure. Your Honour - I'm sorry, I should have said - they're in the papers at 289 -

HIS HONOUR: I've got them at page 289 - yeah.

MR ELLIS SC: But the one that's just been tendered has had a couple of typographical corrections, and that's the copy of what's just been tendered - my learned friend has this copy too.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: They (indistinct word) I don't think. If you start reading from the top please?…….Well - Thursday 5.2.09 at 12:00 noon, 7 Allison Street, West Hobart. Dialled number - Do you remember what that refers to?…….To be honest, I can't. No. Okay. ……. Steve and Mary. Do you remember who they were?…….Friends of Mr Robert Chappell. Okay. ……. Bob, Robert Crawford Martin, known 1972 when came down from Tarraleah, '72 to '73. Wellington Ski Club, met through ski club. Lived here for thirty eight years. In 2005 left Tasmania. Phone number: 0438106659. Okay. And what is that shorthand for - the pieces you can recall?…….We were talking about friends of Mr Robert Chappell.

And next?……. Depressed after marriage break-up.


Do you remember who that referred to?…….Referring to Mr Robert Chappell. And next?……. Anxious to finish project. Passion for cooking, relaxation after work. Who were - who do those -…….Mr Chappell. They refer to Mr Chappell?…….Yes. Yeah.……. Bob was tense. Again, Mr Chappell?…….Mr Chappell: Diaries x 2 taken. Right. And that referred to some transaction, did it?…….That's correct. What was that?…….The accused handed to me two diaries, a black8 and black 2009 diary. Yes. She volunteered those, did she?…….That's correct. Thank you. Now what's next, between -……. Between 3.01.09 and 10.01.09 boat accessed. Recorded in Sue's diary. Bob was petrified of boat getting a bad name and people wouldn't want to go out on it. Discovered on the 10.1.09. 14.1.09 Alex fixed hydraulics. Drinker, one to two stubbies then half bottle of white. He would drink two third of bottle, two cans of Pale Ale, a bottle of white (red) in cupboard where chips were. I think we know who this refers to, the drinking habits, but what does the bottle of red white - I'm sorry, white red in cupboard refer to do you know?……They - according to the accused they would be on the boat and were referring to the cupboard on the boat where the chips were.


Okay….. Where nose bleed was a pool of blood in the cockpit. No financial concerns. Never used computer at home, used computer at work. Who was this referring to me if you can remember?……Mr Chappell. Thank you….. Looked up weather charts on home computer, that was about all. And who was that?……Mr Chappell. Thank you…… Said would retire last year and didn't. Intended to finish project. Quality Assurance manual occupied his mind, wouldn't retire till completed it. Mr Chappell again?……That's correct. Were concerned, two rows wanted sniffer dogs in. What can you recall of that, two rows?……That, from my memory, was in relation to - after the boat was broken into the accused wanted the sniffer dogs in but Mr Chappell didn't and this would cause the two rows. I see. And to the next line?...... Worried about what other people would think. And who did that refer to?……Mr Chappell. Is that still part of the same transaction about sniffer dogs?……That's correct. Right, next line please?…… Gaffer hook fits description of one off Sue's boat. Boat hook in dinghy.


Thank you. And does that bring to mind anything to you?……That was in relation to a gaffer hook that Detective Sinnitt was dealing with that had been recovered so he would have more knowledge of that gaffer hook. Yes….. Was one hook on the deck of boat when we all inspected the boat, 27/1/09. Buoy was in dinghy when - That's buoy?……Sorry? I'm just - the jury's saying it's buoy?……Oh B- yeah: BUOY was in dinghy when left the Zodiac. White with white floating rope attached, plain white rope and buoy polystyrene. Ten dollars from boat chandlery, bought recently. Outboard tank was very full, 3 HP. Being three horsepower. Other loose tank in dinghy. Four trips. Went out, came back and again. Do you remember what that was referring to, or what the fuller explanation was?……That was in relation to the accused going to Four Winds on the dinghy and that she made the four trips, being going out to the yacht, coming back to shore and again. Right. So it's not four return trips she's indicating, it's four - that is, like counting laps in swimming - up down, up down, is four?……That's correct. Count back. All right, next sentence?…… Ladder closest to Marieville Beach end where Zodiac tied. Remember what that referred to?……That the Zodiac was tied to that area when she left the Zodiac. Okay……. Zodiac on rowing club side, yacht protecting Zodiac. What does that mean?……That when the Zodiac was tied up to the yacht -


Yep……..- it was on that particular side of the rowing club - Right…….- and the yacht was protecting the Zodiac from weather. Thank you……. Went through and did chart table. May have had cup of tea. Now is this Ms Neill-Fraser describing her activities on board?……That's correct. Okay, and was that relating to the day before - not the day before, I'm sorry, the 26th January?……The 26th January. Laundry, Bob in engine room in direct line with laundry. This started a row. Half mine I bought them in Queensland. Got out - Do you know what 'them' refers to?……I believe that was about some tools. Okay, yep…….. Got out fruit cake. Had a very good look at washing machine, goes straight through outlet. That was a worry as it could cause boat to sink. Bob snappy, wanted to take off electrical packaging, external regulator is better. Do you remember what that refers to?…….That refers to Mr Chappell was working in the engine room and that accused was working on the washing machine, and Bob became snappy because she got in his way. Mm hm. …….I'm not sure what the electrical packing was about. All right. Or what the "external regulator is better" refers to now?…….I don't know what that is, yeah. Okay. ……. Car was parked near toilet block on gravel. Do you remember what car was referred - being referred to there?…….The vehicle belonging to the accused and Mr Chappell.


Okay. ……. Come in a lot faster than going out in those conditions. What did that refer to?…….That refers to on the 26th of January that it was a lot quicker coming in to shore on the dinghy than it was to go out from shore to the Four Winds yacht. Okay. ……. Looked for slip mats in Bunnings. Who was that - do you remember -…….Pardon? - when - when - the accused was referring to herself doing this?…….Yes, she was. And when was she referring to having done it?…….When? Yes.…….At that stage I recall her being a bit confused as to when she'd actually done that. All right. ……. Can't say when left yacht. Okay, so you're asking about times that she left the yacht?…….That's correct. Okay. So that's all tied up with Bunnings, is it?…….That's correct, it's tied up with her leaving the - the yacht - Yes.…….- and going to Bunnings. Right. So there's confusion about the time or some confusion about the time, and then she said - then she - what's the next sentence?……. Went straight out to Brooker. Right. ……. Came back, took trailer off before took Anne to lunch. Yeah.…….


Bunnings, didn't have trailer on. Sue drives slowly. Okay. So what's she saying there, that at Bunnings she didn't have a trailer on?…….That's correct, she's drove to Bunnings without the trailer on the vehicle. Okay. Thank you. Then - what's next?……. Bunnings, drive in, turn left, parked facing building. Light was fading when left Bunnings. Don't know how long I was there, didn't think it was that long.. 16:40 roughly arrived at Bunnings, main entrance near checkouts. Okay, now is it the sense - sorry if this is not it, that she was saying that she went to Bunnings from leaving the yacht?……That's correct. She didn't know what time she left the yacht at first?……That's correct. But then there was a fairly accurate time given - well a purported accurate time given "16:40 arriving at Bunnings", can you recall if anything in the meantime had been said to her?……There was a conversation between Detective Sinnitt and the accused to help determine a time she may have arrived at Bunnings. Yes?....From my memory that time is something that Detective Sinnitt made a calculation, from the time of leaving the yacht to going to Bunnings. Okay. Do you now recall whether Detective Sinnitt, and say if you don't, said anything about what other witnesses may have said?……He did but I can't recall what that is now. Thank you. So anyway, a time is arrived at, at arriving at Bunnings, and then what's next, "roughly arrived at Bunnings", what's next written?…… Main entrance near checkouts. And that refers to what?……The way she entered Bunnings. Always someone on door. Wearing hat beige shorts joggers sunglasses cream brimmed hat -


This is her is it?……That's correct. Yeah…… Looking at timber, slip mats, turned right and looked at paint section. Is this her at Bunnings?……Pardon? This is Ms Neill-Fraser describing herself at Bunnings on - …..That's correct. - on the 26th January?……That's correct. Yeah…… Went up just about every aisle and did leave via same entrance. Exit same entrance. Called Emma about :30pm, called granny first or second. Granny, do you remember what happened there?……Well at that stage I recall a conversation between the accused and her two daughters were also speaking and from my memory that was a comment that one of the daughters made about granny rang first or second. Okay…… Called mum, 62237187, That's mum's number" Ate - Being to eat food: Ate. Richard rang at 9:30pm. Had a shower when I got home. No headlights on when leaving house. When did that refer to?…….I'm not sure. Okay. Would that have been referring to Bunnings?…….I can't be sure.


Okay. You can't recall a separate inquiry or conversation about leaving the house and headlights?…….I can't recall. No - okay.……. Girl with dark hair. Think she just tied a dinghy up. She was walking. A guy on slipway walking across. People wandering around. When was this?…….That was her response in between a conversation between her and Detective Sinnitt. From my memory, it was when she, the accused left the dinghy, but I can't be sure. Okay. And was that last leaving the dinghy, the sinking time, with the confusion at first as to -…….Could you repeat that question please? And was that when she last left the dinghy?…….That's correct. Whenever it was, the time that she'd been unsure about?…….That's correct. Okay. Do you recall - no, I won't ask that. Thank you, your Honour, nothing further.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Thank you, your Honour. You went down to Constitution Dock to be with the other officers, who you've named; are you able to say when you arrived whether the accused and her family members were there or whether they came later?…….They came later. Thank you. And in fact, a request was made for them to attend to help to determine if anything on the vessel was missing or had been disturbed?…….That's correct. And who made that request?…….Detective Sergeant Conroy. Right. Were you present when he telephone for family members to come?…….I cannot recall if he telephoned or if he asked someone else at the scene. To do that?…….Yes. All right. But in any event, they turned up?…….That's correct. And did they turn up as a group or did Ms Neill-Fraser come alone?……No, Ms Neill-Fraser came with family members. All right, and your best memory was that it was the two daughters, I think you said, and Tim Chappell, is that correct?……That's correct. Thank you. And they went on board the yacht with you and other officers?……Myself and Detective Sergeant Conroy. Right. And they were allowed to walk through the yacht and to examine it?……That's correct. Were there difficulties getting inside the yacht?……There was, because some steps had been moved. Thank you. Which steps had been moved, the first steps into the pilothouse or the steps that go down into the body of the yacht?……Both. Thank you. Where were they?……The first lot of steps going into what I call the wheelhouse - Yes…….As you walk in they were on the far left wall. Yes……And the steps going into what I call the main saloon were on the back wall.


Yes, and they'd been moved, so people presumably had to exercise some care in getting down into the yacht?……That's correct. And is it correct that Ms Neill-Fraser went down into the saloon area?……She did. Yes, and did you go down there with her?……I went down at some stage, yes. The question I asked you was did you go down with her?……Yes. Thank you. And did another police officer go down with her as well as yourself?……Detective Sergeant Conroy. Thank you. And she had a good look around inside the yacht, didn't she?……She did. And at this stage she pointed out to you and the other officer a number of problems that she had identified?……That's correct. And you made a list of those, didn't you?……Sergeant Conroy did, yes. And you've seen his list?……Yes, and I made some notes myself later that evening. Right. Now she first of all pointed out that the switches, electrical switches were in the wrong position on the fuse board?……That's correct. She pointed out that a heavy fire extinguisher was missing from the main saloon?……That's correct. And she pointed to where it should have been?……That's correct. In a little alcove just out from the laundry?……Yes. She said that the wooden floor at the bottom of the steps in the main saloon had been unscrewed?……Yes. She said that the EPIRB was missing?……Yes. And she pointed out where the EPIRB should have been on a bracket on the wall in the main saloon?……That bit I can't recall.


Right. She said a torch located inside the cabin and a juice container were not from the vessel?……That's correct. And she also said that the main mast ropes had been disturbed?……That's correct. Do you remember any of those main mast ropes coming down inside the cabin through a hatch?……No. You don't remember that?……No. She said that the winch handle was in the winch and should not have been there?……That's right. Is that a red coloured or brownie coloured winch handle on the main mast?……It was red. On the main mast?……Yes. Thank you. And she said that the main sheet, which is yacht talk for a rope, had been cut?……That's correct, yes. Correct?……Yes. And she pointed out some marks on the main deck?……Yes. Do you remember what marks she pointed out?……They were like black scuff marks. And where were they?……On the main deck near the main mast. Right. We've got the main deck and then you've got the raised portion for the cabin was it on the raised portion or on the deck itself?……Sorry, I'm not very good with boats. All right, well could we have - if the witness could be shown P3.

HIS HONOUR: That's the first set of photos in your large folders, ladies and gentlemen.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): And I direct your attention please to photograph 7, photograph 8, photo 9, photo 10, 11, 12……Sorry, I don't have photograph 10 here. You don't?……No.


Don't worry about it just look at the rest. Now just take your time please and look at them and tell me whereabouts she identified these scuff marks?……Photograph 7 and 8. Thank you, just a moment. Now I have 7, perhaps you hold up 7 and show me where these scuffmarks were?…….Just there. Thank you. Would you hold it up for the jury?

HIS HONOUR: Could you point it to - show it to me now, please?


HIS HONOUR: So just in front of the mainmast?

WITNESS: That's correct.


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): All right. And these were black scuffmarks?…….They're not black scuffmarks. And were there many of them there?…….Not from my recollection. While you've got those photographs, just have a look at photo 7 for me, do you see a pile of rope on the deck?…….Yes. And just to the side of that air vent, and you see the red handle, that's the red winch handle to which you referred a little while ago?…….That's correct. And do you see a rope running from the winch on the mast down appearing to go into that hatchway -…….Yes. - and also, a rope running along the deck going down into the hatchway?…….Yes. Were they in that position when you were onboard the boat?…….No, they weren't. They weren't? All right. Could I also direct your attention please - if I just go back a second - you'd surely remember that if they were like that, wouldn't you?…….That's correct, I would.


Yes. Could I also direct your attention to photograph number 12? Now do you - and also photograph number 9 - look at photo 9 first of all? To the right of the entrance to the cabin, or the wheelhouse more correctly, we see a bundle of ropes there?…….That's correct. Do you see a winch there with the ropes going up to the winch?…….Yes. Right. Now if you then look at photograph number 12, you'll see the same ropes on that winch - just stay with me for a moment with those, please - do you remember whether those ropes were on that winch at the time you went onto the yacht that day with Ms Neill- Fraser?……No, they weren't. They weren't. Now could the witness be shown P9. You can recover those ones from her.

HIS HONOUR: So now she's being shown the second set of photos in your large folder, ladies and gentlemen.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Now I want you, please, to look at photograph number 9 - just bear with me for one moment, your Honour - perhaps in the meantime I could just direct your attention to photograph 11, photograph 12 and photograph 13, were they the marks to which Ms Neill-Fraser directed your attention?……….Yes, they are. Right. But would it be fair to say this; that if, when she was - sorry, if, when you were on the boat with Ms Neill-Fraser, there were ropes coming from that winch shown in photograph 9, which is in front of you, going down into the cabin, you'd remember that?…….That's correct. Mm. Just bear with me, your Honour. All right. Thank you. Now you're absolutely adamant about that, there were no ropes running from the area of that winch I've shown you down into the cabin?…….Absolutely sure. Right. Thank you for that. And Ms Neill-Fraser identified those marks on the hatchway that you've looked at in the photograph?…….That's correct. And she said to you, "It appears to be a rope mark"?…….Yes. She said, "It appears to be a rope burn mark"?…….Yes. And you looked at it?…….That's correct.


Mm. And there were two of them there, but no obvious sign of how they'd been caused?…….No. Thank you for that. She said that a green piece of rope had also been disturbed or moved?…….The green sheet - Yes.…….- being the green and white rope. Yes.…….That's correct. Thank you. And where was that?…….As you see it in photograph 9. That's the curled up one to the side of the wheelhouse?…….Yeah, just as you see it in that photo. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, they can go back please? Now you and Sergeant Conroy went to the Port Authority at Constitution Dock and sought information as to whether there was any closed circuit television cameras that may assist you?……Yes, that's correct. The purpose of that was to see whether there was any video footage of yachts moored in Sandy Bay, was it?……That's correct. That's right, from the Port Tower or something like that?……Yes. And you were told there weren't? Were you told there weren't - wasn't any CCTV?……No, there was footage - oh cameras, I should say, set up in that area where the yacht was moored. Right. And did you view the film?……I didn't. Well was the film taken by anybody?……No, we're talking about cameras that were set up on the yacht to view the yacht overnight. I'm sorry, this was - I misunderstood you. You were hoping to have CCTV cameras view the yacht for the night of the 27th?……That's correct. Presumably for security purposes?……Exactly, yes, that's right. Thank you. And you arranged for that to happen?……Yes, Sergeant Conroy did, yes. In your presence?……That's correct.


Thank you. And was that yacht to your knowledge under police surveillance, that is physical surveillance, on the night of the th?……Not to my knowledge. Right, but it was clearly arranged that it would be covered by cameras?……That's correct. Right. And when was the yacht, to your knowledge, towed to Cleanlift at Goodwood?……I have no knowledge of when that happened. Right. Well did either you or Sergeant Conroy in your presence go back and view the CCTV for the night of the 27th?……I didn't, no. Was that film attained by police?……I don't know. All right, thank you. You also spoke at length with Richard Robert King at his home at Tea Tree, is that right?……That's correct. And he told you about a conversation he'd had the night of the 26th with the accused about the condition of Mr Chappell's daughter, Claire?……That's correct. He told you there'd been a long conversation with her about her condition?……I can't recall if it was a long conversation. Right. Now you went to the home of the accused also on the 4th February, didn't you?……That's correct. And that was to fill out some basic forms that were needed in a situation where there was a missing person?……Yes, that's correct. All right. And then you went back on the 5th and you had the conversation that you've described today, is that right?……Yes, that's correct. Right. Now how long were you there for?……Oh, I can't be sure. Well do you have your police notebook with you where you no doubt recorded all of this?……I don't believe I recorded the time that I left - Just answer the question, do you have your notebook with you?……Yes, I do.


Now would you have a look in your notebook and tell me whether you have recorded the time that you left the premises?……No, I haven't recorded the time I left the premises. And we can assume that 12 noon is the time you arrived there or was noon the time that you commenced to speak with the accused?……12 noon is the time I commenced to write notes. Thank you. Now when you were there she had her two daughters with her?……That's correct. And you hadn't her that you were coming?……I can't recall if I did. The first entry you've got here is, "7 Allison Street, West Hobart, dialled number", what does that mean?……I can't recall. No idea?……I can't remember, no. What's the reference to Steve and Mary?……They were friends of Mr Chappell. Right. Steve and Mary who?……I don't know. You've then got "Bob" and then you've got "Robert Crawford Martin"?……Yes. They're two different people Bob and - ……No. Right…..No, it's the same person. Right. And he's another friend, Mr Bob Martin?……Yes, that's - Thank you…..No, he's another friend to Mr Chappell. Right, thank you. And then you've set out basically how they got to know each other is that right?……That's correct. "Lived here for thirty eighty years", refers to who, Mr Chappell or the accused?……Mr Martin. Mr Bob Martin?……Yes. Okay. And Mr Bob Martin 2005 left Tasmania, is that right?……Yes.


And the phone number I assume is Bob Martin's?……That's correct. Right. And the comment, "depressed after marriage broke up", that's a reference to Mr Chappell's original marriage is it?……That's correct. Thank you. Now you took two diaries, the 2008 and 2009, what conversation preceded the taking of these diaries?…….That was in relation to the break-in on Four Winds. Right. And the accused told you about this break-in on Four Winds?…….That's correct. Correct?…….That's correct. But you've apparently taken the diaries, which you've recorded, before you've even recorded the conversation about the boat being accessed - a bit out of sequence, isn't it?…….The notes are, yes. So if I was reading the notes in accordance with their sequence I should read: Between 3/1/09 and 10/1/09 the boat was accessed, recorded in Sue's diary. Bob was petrified of boat getting a bad name and people wouldn't want to go out on it. Discovered on 9th - Sorry: - discovered on 10/1/09 - That should appear before "diaries taken"?…….The diaries did come out before - at the same time of that conversation, but I did record it in that sequence. But you - but you wouldn't have taken the diaries before she'd told you about the break-in?…….No, that's correct. No - so, it's out of sequence?…….The notes are, yes. Yes. Any others out of sequence in there?…….Not that I'm aware of.


Right. Did you look at the diary to see whether there was a note about the -

MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, there's certain aspects of this questioning I'd like to raise with you in the absence of the jury?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Ladies and gentlemen, would you go to the jury room please.




MR ELLIS SC: My learned friend is now, it seems, he'll correct me if I'm wrong, moving to seek to establish that the diaries indeed contained purportedly contemporaneous entry, in the nature of diary, concerning this alleged break-in of the - of the yacht. Now in my submission, this is simply a self-serving statement in another form by the accused. There is no evidence that the entry was contemporaneous. There is no evidence that - and indeed, the fact that the accused volunteered these diaries by way of self corroboration, in my submission, underlines exactly the self-serving nature of them. We've made a considered decision not to seek to tender them, in the course of that concern, that there is no independently assessed contemporarity about them, and in my submission, they should not be allowed to be got in by the backdoor, as to - by the examination of the contents of documents not in evidence.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, the Crown approached the matter on the basis that the entry is an incorrect entry and that it's selfserving. There's no evidence to suggest that. What you've got is a diary with an entry recording a break-in of the vessel, or believed break-in of the vessel. The question I directed to the witness at this stage it was limited, it was to the effect, 'Did you look at that entry?' - now, there can be no objection to that. What I do after that is an entirely different matter.

MR ELLIS SC: Well the objection is relevant.

HIS HONOUR: Well isn't - doesn't it come back to hearsay; the assertion - the assertion in the diary is a representation as to a past fact and it's a piece of hearsay. The - yes, you can ask did the witness look at the diary, if you ask what did the diary say, you're asking - you're inviting the witness to provide some hearsay evidence.

MR GUNSON SC: That's not what I've done yet.


MR GUNSON SC: And with the greatest of respect, my friend's objection is somewhat premature -


HIS HONOUR: Well we -

MR ELLIS SC: Well, with respect, what could be the relevance of asking the witness if she looked at the dairy?

HIS HONOUR: Well look I don't know but what could be the harm. It's sometimes a very good idea to discuss anticipated objections in the absence of the jury so that the - so that inadmissible evidence doesn't all of a sudden come out so I'm not going to be critical of Mr Ellis for interrupting the evidence for this discussion but we've had the discussion and I think I - there's nothing for me to rule we'll get the jury back and see what happens next.1 JURY RETURN

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): In the presence of the accused did you examine or look at the two diaries that you were given?……The accused may have shown them to me but I don't recall specifically. Did you see where the diaries were taken?……No. Did you ask the accused to direct your attention to any entries at all in the diaries?……Sorry, could you repeat that question? Did you ask the accused to point out any particular entries in the diaries?……No, I didn't. All right. She told you she had recorded in her diary though the fact that there had been a break in?……She did. Thank you. Now you didn't look at that entry whilst you were at the house?……I don't recall, sorry. Thank you. Did she tell you that the break-in had been on or about the 10th January 2009?……Yes, she did. And did she tell you what had been discovered in the terms of the break-in?……No. Well were you not interested in knowing about a possible break-in of the yacht given the circumstances that you were investigating?……Yes. And you didn't seek to ask any questions about it?……There was mention of what she thought may have been on the boat, but I don't know what the break-in was about. What did she say about what she thought might have been on the boat?……There was mention about drugs. Yes…….That's all I can recall. Well surely that interested you?……I can't recall. Well you haven't noticed - haven't noted anything in your notes about a conversation about drugs, have you?……Only in relation to two sniffer dogs and the concern from Mr Chappell. Do I see anywhere in this document the word 'drugs' appearing?……No.


No. Now were there other conversations that you had during this period that aren't in these notes?……Yes, the conversations between Detective Sinnitt and the accused that I didn't write. So am I right in thinking this is just part of the conversations being forwarded?……That's correct. And that there were other things discussed which don't appear in your notes?……That's correct. Well can you recall any other things that were discussed that don't appear in your notes?……Not specifically. Right. You've got no memory now?……I have some memory. Well what memory do you have?……There was general conversation between Detective Sinnitt and the accused, as to the exact detail I can't remember, but it was in relation to time - times in relation to the 26th January 2009. Now the reference: /1/09 Alex fixed hydraulics. What was that about?……The accused stated that on that date Alex fixed the hydraulics to the yacht. Alex who, you don't know?……I don't know. Didn't ask?……I can't recall. But if you'd asked and the name had been given to you you would have recorded it?……Probably. Well certainly, surely?……I'm not sure. The entry "no financial concerns" what does that mean?…….That Mr Chappell had no financial concerns. Yes. Or did it mean that the two of them had no financial concerns?…….I recall it talking about Mr Chappell. Right. Did you ask the accused how well off she was?…….No, I didn't.


So - but you asked about Mr Chappell's financial concerns?…….On that day we were talking about Mr Chappell. Right. And what questions did you put to her about his financial situation?…….I didn't, it was Detective Sinnitt. But you were present when Sinnitt asked the questions - tell me what questions he asked?…….I can't recall specifically.' Do you recall any of the conversation about finances?…….Some of, just - Well tell us what you heard?…….If there were any financial concerns - debt - that's what I recall. Well did you ask, for instance, or did Sinnitt ask, for instance, did he have any money in the bank or did he have pressing creditors or was he likely to get a lot of money from superannuation or -…….I can't - - any other money or what?…….I can't recall. And "no financial concerns" is just a shorthand way of recording a conversation about general financial circumstances - is that right?…….That's how I recorded it, yes. You're not suggesting she said, "No financial concerns" or something like that?…….No. Thank you. Now about the computer at home, who raised that, you or Sinnitt?…….Detective Sinnitt. And at the end of the day we go from "he never used the computer at home, as I understood it," …….That's right. - "but he would then look up weather charts on the home computer"?…….That's correct. So the first sentence is qualified by the second, is that right?…….Could you repeat that question? The first sentence, "Never used computer at home used computer at work", is qualified by the second sentence?…….I'm not sure what you mean by that question - sorry. It adds to it?…….That's correct.


Thank you. Now "were concerned - or we're concerned, two rows, wanted sniffer dogs brought in" - now as I understood your evidence about that, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, there was disagreement between the accused and Mr Chappell about whether dogs should be employed to check the boat because of some issue about a belief about drugs being on it?……That's correct. She wanted it done, he didn't want it done?……Yes, that's correct. And he felt that it may affect the reputation of the boat or something like that?……That's correct. Thank you. And he was worried about what other people would think - …..Yes, he was. - if the sniffer dogs got on board and did whatever they do?……That's correct. Thank you. Now there's a reference to what you've described as a 'gaffer hook' but which in fact should be a 'gaff hook', what was all that about?……It was in relation to an exhibit that Detective Sinnitt was dealing with. That's not particularly helpful, tell me about what was said?……He had a gaffer hook that he'd looked at that had been recovered and he was trying to get a description of any gaff hook that was on the yacht. Where was this gaff hook discovered?……I don't know. So Detective Sinnitt had found one, or somebody had given him one, and he wanted to see whether one like that was on the boat?……That's correct. Right, thank you. And she made it quite clear to you that the discussions or arguments or rows, whatever they might be, about sniffer dogs was after the boat was broken into - ……That's correct. - as she said on or about the 10th January?……That's correct. Thank you. Now could I ask you please to go to the next page and there is an entry about six or seven lines down - Ladder closest to Marieville Beach end where Zodiac tied.


Now in response to a question from Mr Ellis you said you believed that related to the boat being tied up at Marieville Beach?……Yes, the dinghy, yes. To a ladder?……Yes. And that was what she said, the boat had been tied up to a ladder?……Ladder closest to Marieville Beach. Yes…..I'm not sure if that's exactly what she said, being a ladder. Right, we'll come back to that. What I suggest this entry relates to is a discussion you had with her about where the dinghy was tied up when she left it on the 26th?……That's correct. Right. Now what I suggest she said to you was, "It had been tied up at the wharf at the Royal Yacht Club, nearest a metal ladder that was on that wharf, and the ladder was at the end of the wharf closest to Marieville Beach"?…….I can't recall. Well, did you ever go down to Marieville Esplanade?…….No, I didn't. Right. Would you have a look at this photograph for me, P40, please, photo 1?

HIS HONOUR: This is the fifth set of photos - the final set of photos in the big folder, ladies and gentlemen.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Now I assume that you know where Marieville Esplanade is?…….Yes, I do. And I assume you know where the beach at Marieville Esplanade is?…….Vaguely. Right. And you can accept that there is evidence that this is a photograph of the end of Marieville Beach and it's obvious to you that there's no ladder there, isn't there?…….There's no ladder in that photo. All right. Now if I suggest to you again, that it's more likely than not, that what she said to you was that she'd tied up the dinghy at the jetty or wharf at the Royal Yacht Club near a ladder that was closest to the Marieville Beach end of the yacht club wharf, that's more likely than not?…….Possible, but I can't recall.


All right. The reference "Zodiac on rowing club side, yacht protecting Zodiac" is a reference in fact to the methodology used to tie up the yacht - I'm sorry - tie up the Zodiac, or rubber boat, when it was out at the yacht?…….That's correct. And what she said was that she'd tied it up to get the advantage of getting out of the wind so that the wind was coming onto one side of the boat she'd go around the other side?…….That's correct. Thank you. And the next entry - I won't bother to read it - is very much a shorthand form of what she told you happened when she was out on the boat that day for some hours?…….That's correct. And if I suggested to you that she'd given you a far more detailed explanation than appears there and you just put the basics in you wouldn't argue with that?……I wouldn't argue with that. So we can accept there was much more told you, but you just put in what you thought as you got it down as quickly as you could?……That's correct. Because you were handwriting it, weren't you?……That's correct. Yes, and you couldn't take in every single word that was uttered?……No, that's correct. Thank you. And she gave you a very full description of how the day went, didn't she?……I can't recall any more than what I've written down. Right, but you wouldn't deny that more was said to you?……I wouldn't deny it. Thank you. Now you said in your evidence that she appeared very confused about the reference to Bunnings?


MR GUNSON SC: No, we've got -

MR ELLIS SC: In my submission that was not said.

MR GUNSON SC: I have a note, 'Appeared very confused about that, Bunnings'.


HIS HONOUR: From memory I think she said something about being confused about the time.

MR ELLIS SC: She said confused and after further questioning it was confused about the time of going to Bunnings.

HIS HONOUR: I've got a note, 'A bit confused as to when'.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, that's right, not about the going to, when.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Let's clear this up. It's your evidence that she was clearly confused about an issue, what was the issue?……Sorry, can you repeat that question? Back to the evidence you gave about her going to Bunnings?……Yes. You said in your evidence, you've just heard his Honour read it, she appeared confused a bit?……About the times. About the times, thank you. And the ultimate figure or time of 16:40 was calculated as a result of a conversation between her and Detective Sinnitt, was it?……That's correct. Right. So it was a working back process along the lines of well you left the yacht club at this time, or you left X point at this time therefore you must have probably arrived about that time, is that right?……That's correct. And she simply adopted that?……Yes. Thank you. But it was through Detective Sinnitt's calculations that she ended up adopting?……That's correct. Having been confused originally?……That's correct, yes. Thank you. And she gave quite a fulsome description of what she was wearing that day?……She did, yes. Right. Thank you. And just so there's no doubt about it Robin - Robert Martin who is the - referred to at the beginning of those notes was also present at Allison Street that day?……Yes, he was.


And he was present throughout the interview that you and Detective Sinnitt had with the accused?……He was present for the conversation we had, yes. Yes, thank you. And there is a reference in your notes to, and I read it, "Can't say when left yacht", that was a reference to the time at which she actually left it?……That's correct. And notwithstanding that then there was the suggestion - sorry, the calculations carried out by Detective Sinnitt to try and arrive at a time that she would have arrived at Bunnings?……Yes, that's correct. Do you remember much of this conversation, trying to calculate the time?……I do remember some of it, yes. Do you remember what Detective Sinnitt said?……He had received information that - I just want you please to tell me what Detective Sinnitt said to the accused?……I can't quote what he said. I can't recall. But you're in no doubt it was through his calculations, such as they might be, that she ended up adopting 16:40 as the time?……That's correct. Thank you, I have no further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. You were just asked what Detective Sinnitt said and you said that he had received information were you recounting the tenor of what you recall he said rather than the exact quote?……I was recalling - Getting back to, yes, before you were stopped……Yeah, my version of that conversion. All right. Could you proceed to give it please?…….I was already aware that at 2:00pm there was one witness that could inform -

MR GUNSON SC: Oh no, no, this is what I - really what I'm objecting to, your Honour, the question is -


MR GUNSON SC: - what this witness said, or Detective Sinnitt said, in front of the accused - we can't have this happening.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, you can't tell us what information that Detective Sinnitt had received. But to the best of your recollection what, in substance, was said - that's - that's the question.

MR GUNSON SC: And with respect the witness said she couldn't remember, therefore it's not - it can't -

HIS HONOUR: Well no, she - what she - she - she was asked a specific question about what Detective Sinnitt said. She couldn't recall precisely what he said. The question is, what in substance did he say - that's - that's a proper question for re-examination.

MR GUNSON SC: What in substance - but she wants to go beyond that.

HIS HONOUR: Well I'm trying to confine her to what in substance he said - and that's Mr Ellis' question, isn't it, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour, that's it.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. So what in substance did he say - never mind what he knew, what in substance did he say?

WITNESS: I'm just trying to think how I might be able to word this, your Honour. He had a time, and in substance, he was working out from that time how long it would take to get to Bunnings from the yacht.


MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, the witness is working out - it should - the answer to the question - she should be asked a direct her mind to is, what in the presence of the accused did Detective Sinnitt say.

WITNESS: I can't re-quote what he said.

HIS HONOUR: Well no, no, no, just - just a minute - just a minute - Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: No, in my submission, there's no rule that witnesses must be confined to direct speech.

HIS HONOUR: No. And she's - and she's got to be allowed to answer the question as best she can in her own way. But - all right, so the - are you saying that the nature of the conversation involved talking through how long it would take to get from one place to another?

WITNESS: That's correct, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. (Resuming): And you said, as to the substance of it, that Detective Sinnitt had a time, from what did he say, if he did, he had that time?…….He got a time from information received. Right. And did he say the source of the information?……A witness. A witness. So he had a time from a witness?……Yes. That he put to or suggested to Ms Neill-Fraser?……That's correct. And from that a calculation was made about the time she would arrive at Bunnings?……That's correct. Thank you. Now - thank you, your Honour, I've finished that. Now another thing you have put in - that was put to you in crossexamination and you agreed with was you wouldn't deny more was said?……That's correct.


Now I want to put something to you and let's see if you do deny it was said, namely that Ms Neill-Fraser told you and Detective Sinnitt that she'd been down to the yacht later that evening of the 26th January, can you deny that that was said?……I can. Thank you. Nothing further, thank you, your Honour.






HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


MR GUNSON SC: The Director tells me that the next witness is to be Constable Kriss Lawler whose proof your Honour will find at page volume 2 I think it is.


MR GUNSON SC: And your Honour will also need to have reference for the purpose of this submission to the supplementary volume of material page 73 and 74.


MR GUNSON SC: And if I could just paraphrase the Constable's evidence. It is proposed he give evidence about his arrival on the boat, the location on board the boat after it had bee pumped of the cut to the pipe going to the toilet and then he found later another valve or - that is described in page 74, and perhaps I could direct your Honour's attention to the bottom of page 74 where he says - I was present when Constable Cunningham located another seacock which was opened allowing sea water to flow freely into the vessel. The valve was located under the floor in a compartment adjacent to the previously mentioned toilet door. The hatch to that compartment had been lifted most likely by water whilst the vessel was flooded. Attached to that valve was a short length of rubber hose which had been cut. The cut did not appear to have been freshly made. The valve and hose appeared to be no longer in use. I'm of the opinion it was likely part of an old plumbing system that's no longer required, possibly a toilet or similar. And then there's the next paragraph where he gives his opinion about the person having to have an intimate knowledge of the vessel Four Winds and it's my submission that whilst he can give evidence as to where it was, that it is was located under some floorboards which had obviously, according to him, risen with the water, it doesn't necessarily follow that a person who would seek to activate that valve would have to have an intimate knowledge of the vessel because of obviously any person with knowledge of a vessel, with - lifting the board, would find the sea cock. It's my submission that his evidence should be confined to what he observed rather than the opinion he purports to want to give.


HIS HONOUR: Well, there - we;; you're objecting to the whole paragraph beginning " It is my opinion" -


HIS HONOUR: Now, earlier than that, the - he says "the hatch to that compartment had been lifted" then he says "most likely by water whilst the vessel was flooded."


HIS HONOUR: Is there an objection to that?

MR GUNSON SC: He can simply give evidence that it had been lifted.

HIS HONOUR: So you're objecting to him giving opinion evidence as to the cause of the hatch having been lifted? MR GUNSON SC; Yes. Although I'm on weaker ground there, I suspect.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I just want to begin by noting precisely what you are and are not objecting to - MR GUNSON SC; I will object - I will object to that because it's mere supposition on his part.

HIS HONOUR: all right. "Attached to that valve was a short length of rubber hose which had been cut". Now, "which had been cut"?

MR GUNSON SC: Which I suspect really should have "had a cut on it". He goes on to say "The cut did not appear to have been freshly made".

HIS HONOUR: Well, that's - well you don't have to be an expert to say that a rubber hose appeared to have been cut and appeared not to have been recently cut, do you?


HIS HONOUR: So are you objecting to any of that?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: All right. "the valve and hose appeared to me to be no longer in use". Are you objecting to any of that?

MR GUNSON SC: Um - he would have to give a foundation or basis for it, which I must say I would assume would be given but he'd have to give that foundational basis before that could be led.

HIS HONOUR: " I am of the opinion that it was likely part of an old plumbing system that was no longer required, possibly a toilet or similar.

MR GUNSON SC: Well again, absent any evidence from him as to whether he traced it through to workout what it was, it shouldn't be given.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Now, is the basis of your objection that - that this is opinion evidence that could only be given by a properly qualified expert and the witness is lacking the necessary expertise or qualifications, is that it?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour, because plumbing evidence is some - requires some expertise. If he says, in a proof we haven't yet received, of course, that he is intimate about the knowledge of how plumbing systems work on boats of this size, the situation would be different, but we don't have that sort of proof. So I'm assuming he has such knowledge as he might have as a policeman assigned to marine duties, whatever they might be. Whether they extend to this level of intimate knowledge of boats is an entirely different matter.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Nothing further you want to say? MR GUNSON: No, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Maybe it is a bit of an absence of proofing. Your Honour, I understand you have the photographs yet to be tendered of Mr Dobbyn, they're in the small folder, and the last set there, and number 17 provides the best view, it seems, of the seacock to which we're referring. Now I had proposed to actually tender that photo through Constable Lawler, who would say that it is an accurate view of the - of the seacock that he


found was - was open, depositing water. And when you look at it's - the seacock itself is of course the object with the blue handle, it has coming off it a green pipe, and then a piece of hose, and what mightn't be appreciated necessarily by just looking at the picture is that that hose ends pretty much where it's shown on the picture, that is cut off there and goes no further. So it's got a cut into the hose - that's just a little bit of hose that comes off the little bit of pipe that otherwise serves no other purpose, hence his assumption that it once did serve a purpose but was replaced. Also that justifies his evidence that unless you knew, because when you look at it you don't know if you open that it's going to let the sea in, so unless you had prior knowledge of that vessel that opening that seacock would let in the sea. Now of course it's a matter of his familiarity with marine vessels, he says he's had seven years with various different types and we've had from Mr Stevenson without objection a recounting of various seacocks and it emerged that almost always they serve a purpose, they come from the engine or something like that.

HIS HONOUR: Now hang on, you said something about seven years.


HIS HONOUR: Oh yes, supplemental proof, yes.

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: So in his recounting of the seacocks Mr Stevenson said before the jury that usually they serve some purpose and this one doesn't, this one doesn't, and so those things together are the basis of the opinion, namely that it was not clearly visible to be a pipe which would let in the sea - I'm sorry, a seacock which would let in the sea because it's only at certain angles when you're right down into it that you can see that in fact the hose is cut off and stops there. It's not obviously connected to anything and it's not serving a purpose so if you didn't have intimate knowledge of the boat you might be going around a very long time looking for seacocks and you'd go to the likely places, as I understand it. So that's the basis of it, your Honour, basically it's another way of saying that it is not immediately obvious and would not be immediately obvious to someone without prior knowledge of the boat. Now as to the board probably floating off, again perhaps it's a lack of proof but there's a basis in that and that is that it wasn't screwed


down and therefore when water pressure - when water pressure equalises it's fairly notorious that wooden objects would float, that is the water came well over this and so the -

HIS HONOUR: Well it's - well what he can say is that - that it wasn't screwed down -


HIS HONOUR: - if - if it had been in position when the vessel was flooded there would have been nothing to -

MR ELLIS SC: That's right -

HIS HONOUR: - keep it in position.

MR ELLIS SC: And of course, if that expressed as "could of - could have floated away" I'm equally happy. I don't press the question of probabilities there, if that's - if that's a problem.

HIS HONOUR: Right. In reply, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I just adopt the provisions of the Evidence Act, your Honour, commencing at s76 onwards. That's about - on the basis upon which my submission is founded.


<RULING - HIS HONOUR: Yes, well generally speaking I'm against you, Mr Gunson. S79 is relevant. The starting point is s76(1): Evidence of an opinion is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact about the existence of which the opinion was expressed. There's an exception for evidence as to an opinion where - under s79: If a person has specialised knowledge, based on the person's training, study or experience the opinion rule does not apply to evidence of an opinion of that person that is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. The witness says that - or apparently is going to say that he spent seven years as an officer within the Marine Division of Tasmania Police so it's a matter of experience rather than training or study. He, in seven years, one can infer, has received some specialised knowledge as a result of experience and in my view that would entitle him to say that if you didn't know the vessel you'd have extreme difficulty locating a seacock that was in a particular place and didn't serve a purpose and wasn't - wasn't connected to any functioning fitting of the boat, et cetera. So far as the freshness of the cut that's a different sort of opinion, that's an opinion that - well under s78(b)- The opinion rule doesn't apply to evidence of an opinion expressed by a person if evidence of the opinion is necessary to obtain an adequate account or understanding of the person's perception of the matter or event. We'll hear there isn't an event but there's a matter, there's a length of hose, a very short length of hose, and what the witness apparently wants to say is that the hose appeared - looked like it had been cut to that length and not recently. Now that's a lay opinion but it's necessary for an opinion to be expressed in order to give a proper description of the hose and the un-connected or open end of the hose. Now, so far as the opinion that it seemed to be part of an old plumbing system no longer in use - that's something that someone with 7 years experience of boats would have the experience to say and so far as the hypothesis about the hatch floating off is concerned,


it's not necessary that an opinion be expressed but a thorough description of the hatch and the lack of anything to hold it on, if water came and up to it from underneath, is something that can be given without an opinion being expressed. So subject to that qualification about the hatch, I am of the view that the - all of the evidence intended to be led is properly admissible.

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, I don't seek to quibble with your ruling, indeed I don't, but it would seem with respect, that the prosecution is going to have to lead some evidence that accords with s7 (9) as to specialised knowledge, based on training, study or experience and at the present stage we haven't got any of that proofed to us, and I'm not going to object to it being given at this stage being given, orally, but it would seem before it could have any weight, it would have to be led.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it seems to me - well, if want to take any point about the witness's expertise, it seems to me that I should let the - I should get the jury back, we should have the evidence of expertise and at that point, if there is to - I should allow an opportunity - I should offer you the opportunity to cross-examine on the voire dire as to the expertise question if - I mean by determining anything on the papers I'm taking a shortcut, so -

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, it's my submission that the appropriate course would be to take the evidence of expertise on the voire dire, it'll be a few minutes I imagine. It may be that I crossexamine, it may be that I don't, we'll just have to wait and see what emerges.


MR ELLIS SC: Happy with that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, well in that case the constable can be called.VD319



<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr Lawler, you're Kriss Ellison Lawler?……Yes. And an officer - senior constable in the Marine Police?……That's right. How long have you been with the Marine Police?……Seven years in total, the first two years of that were on - were when I was stationed on King Island and five years subsequent to that in Hobart. Did you have any marine experience before joining them?……Private experience, not - Yes…….Not within Tasmania Police, yes. No, never mind police…….Yes, yeah, I had grown up in - with my family having a small runabout. As I grew older I was fortunate to use - be able to use a friend's father's thirty foot motor sailer, so I was able to use that for four or five years prior to joining the Police Force and intermittently until I moved to the Water Police. So you were able to sail that yourself as a young man, motor sailer?……Yes. Right. And did you become familiar with the workings of boats from that knowledge and other - other that you gained?……Yes, there was procedures that we had to undertake every time we got on board the boat to get it up and going. Okay. Now leaving that boat, with your experience with the police has there been any specialised training as to - as to your duties in the Marine Police?……I hold an unlimited coxwain's certificate, which entitles me to master vessels up to twelve metres in length. Right……With that is a diesel endorsement, which entitles me to master diesel powered vessels. Thank you. And in the course of your duties have you inspected and become familiar with the workings of various vessels?…….Yes, I have. VOIRE DIRE VD320


Okay. Do most vessels have seacocks?…….Certainly the vessels that - that remain in the water do, yes, not necessarily our trailer - trailer vessels have seacocks - well they have the seacock type valve but they're typically for fuels systems and those sorts of things. So no, those that remain in the water certainly all do. And what's your experience with the seacocks, are they usually attached for some purpose or not?…….It is usual that they're - it's a valve to allow raw water, seawater into the vessel be it for, you know, onboard plumbing systems or engine cooling systems, those sorts of things. Right. So they're connected to a purpose -…….Yes. - they're not just there so you can open it and let the sea in?…….No. Okay. And that's in your experience of many - well how many different vessels, can you estimate?…….Oh, well Tasmania Police own and operate four vessels that remain on the water permanently. Yes.…….Dauntless is a 10 metre catamaran style vessel which is used as our first response vessel in Hobart, and then there's three larger vessels, Vigilant, Fortescue and Van Dieman that are used for multi-day patrols and I've worked on all four of those. You've worked on all four of them, and does that include maintenance and checking them - safety checking them and so on - …….It does, well none of those vessels are my - my personal responsibility to maintain but I have helped maintain each and all of those. All right. That will be the evidence then, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, do you wish to cross-examine?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: What specific experience do you have in the plumbing arrangements that operate onboard vessels, say, of the size of Four Winds?…….Oh well that would be the three larger class vessels, I guess, in the Tasmania Police fleet. Yes.…….And as I mentioned before there's procedures that need to be undertaken before you operate one of the vessels; there's seacocks to be opened to allow raw water in for engine cooling systems. Right. …….And there's plumbing systems on each of those vessels that use raw water to operate. And what you're saying, onboard the police vessels, those seacocks are closed while the vessels are not in operation?……Typically, yes. Typically. And is that typically the case on other vessels used by members of the public or are the boats used by the police different?……No, boats used by the police would be the norm in my experience. It's my practice not to leave seacocks open when you're not operate - when you're not on board the vessel. Yes. It's your practice, and presumably that's the practice adopted by Tasmania Police as part of routine procedures is it?……Yes. All right. And it doesn't follow logically that all people who own boats of that size do that?……Well I can't say what all people do, no. Thank you. But in terms of the actual plumbing systems within a boat do you have any expertise there or claim any expertise there?……None except to say that they typically - those that allow raw water - sorry, seawater into the vessel are typically for - really only for engine cooling or for toilet plumbing. Yes. Or for generators that need water?……Engine cooling, yes. Yes, thank you. But in respect of the Four Winds particularly with respect to this seacock that you found to be open you say that it was likely to be part of an old plumbing system, would it be fair to say that you didn't trace it through to see what it was?……There was no tracing it through because the hose was severed.


But you couldn't by looking at the plans of the vessel for instance work out what it had been?……No, I had no access to the plans of the vessel. You didn't do any of that?……No. You just simply looked at it and said, "Oh, it's probably part of an old plumbing system"?......There would be no other purpose for it. Well you believe that to be the case you can't think of any other possibility?……Other than a, like I said, a toilet or an engine cooling system, I can't think of any other purpose. Perhaps - I beg your pardon, perhaps a deck wash system, you know, perhaps a deck wash would be the only other system but again that's a plumbing system. Yeah, but deck washes are very common through this sort of system aren't they?……Oh, absolutely. All right. Yes, I have no further questions, your Honour.


<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Only as to one thing. This wasn't connected to any system, deck wash, toilet, bridge and cooling?.....No. It wasn't connected to anything.


And in your experience, sea cocks are connected to some system?.....Yes. Thank you. No further questions, thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: I take it Mr Gunson, you don't wish to call any evidence on the voire dire?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do you maintain - do you wish to submit that the witness lacks the experience or training necessary for him to be able to give expert opinion evidence?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour

HIS HONOUR: all right. Than we will get the jury back. We will have the jury back in. I'll allow the expert evidence to be given.



HIS HONOUR: I'm sorry I kept you waiting, ladies and gentlemen, but we had to discuss something that's now been fully discussed and we can proceed. Swear the next witness.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Constable, you are Chris Ellison Lawler?....Yes. You're a senior constable in the Tasmanian Police Service?....That's right. Stationed with Marine and Rescue Services?.....In Hobart, yes. In Hobart. And you were so stationed last year in January9….Yes, I was. And in fact how long have you been with Marine and Rescue Services?.....Seven years in total, the first two years being on King Island, as part of my duties there and five years subsequent to that in Hobart. Thank you. And most of your duties are carried out on boats therefore?……There is a land based component to our duties certainly, but yes, waterborne activities are significant. Do you hold any qualifications -……Yes. - in relation to boating?……I hold an unlimited coxwain's certificate with a diesel endorsement. Thank you. And before you joined the police did you have experience in any watercraft?……Yes, I did. I grew up with my family owning a small runabout that I was allowed to use and as I got older through my mid to later teens I was fortunate enough that my friend's father allowed us to use a thirty foot motor sailer that belonged to him. Right, and you two young blokes operated that, is that right?……Yes. And did you look at the safety aspects and the running of that boat and others since you've joined the Police Force?……Yes. Thank you. Now were you recalled to duty at about 7:00 a.m. on the th January?……Yes, I was.


And did you go somewhere?……Yes, we travelled from - in the company of Constable Craig Jackman we travelled from the Domain slipyard to Battery - to the moored vessels at Battery Point on board police vessel Observer. Right. And did you go to - what did you notice as you - as you did that?……As we approached the moored yachts off Battery Point I could see a white yacht riding in a heavily bow down position on the - toward the outer - outer bounds of the moorings. Was it attached to its mooring?……Yes, it was. Okay. Did you note the name of the vessel?……It was Four Winds. Did you go alongside it?……Yes, we did. And what did you find?……When we came alongside there was another police officer there already I believe and another male and as we - when we came alongside I climbed on board the vessel. And getting on what did you see?……From the cockpit area I was able to see inside through the - through the wheelhouse, if you like, the helm station. I could see that beyond the helm station the vessel was largely flooded. Did you decide to do something?……Yes I did, I decided it was appropriate to have a look through the vessel to see if there was anybody on board, so I moved from the cockpit through the - down some stairs into the helm station - Yeah.…….- and then down a - down another step into, what I would describe as the 'saloon', and once I got into there the water was roughly waist deep, and I searched forward through the vessel there, the water got deeper obviously as I - as I moved forward through the vessel. Right.…….I could feel, as I sort of felt around there was - there appeared to be floor panels lifted and it wasn't all that - it wasn't all that easy to walk through. Okay. Did the - it may not have, did the angle which the boat was at, being bow down, and you're getting into deeper water as you move along, indicate anything to you about the source of


water?…….Nothing about the source of water - I guess I assumed it was probably coming from - from the - it was coming in through the front somewhere, because you know, there was a - clearly a waterless space at the back, and as I - after I'd searched through the - the forward section I moved back through the - the galley toward the stern and just beyond the galley the water level had dissipated to near nothing by then. I see. Did - were you joined by further police personnel?…….Later in the morning - well I say later, soon after, I guess, we'd called from - for some assistance from - from colleagues to help pump the vessel of water. Yeah. Did you understand that you were looking for anyone onboard?…….I wasn't positive I was looking for anybody onboard, but it wasn't - when I climbed onboard it just wasn't a usual scenario - it's not common to find vessels sinking on their mooring, and you know, to compound the unusualness of it, I guess, was the fact that when we got onboard everything was unlocked and the boat just appeared sort of untidy. There was - there was just enough in my mind that made me think I - I should go through and have a look and see if there's anybody here. Okay. You didn't find anyone, take it?…….No, I didn't. And what, so far as you're aware of course, became the priority in respect of the vessel?…….After I'd discovered there was nobody onboard the priority was to - to save the vessel from sinking. And was that achieved?…….It was, yes, we - we had some mechanical pumps brought to us by colleagues and - and some assistance provided by Tas Fire Service. Yes.…….And in addition, a local business from Battery Point came out and provided - provided a pump to us as well. And how long was it before you could say you were winning?……It took - it took a reasonable amount of time, I can't be certain how long it look. I would say it took us, you know, close on an hour, you know, to see a significant reduction in the water level in the vessel. Okay. Eventually when most of the water was pumped out did you search for the source?……Yeah, I did. As the water level got lower I began to hear the sound of trickling water and I was able to trace that to a toilet or to a pipe adjacent to a toilet on the - in a bathroom on the port for'ead quarter.


And what did you find there?……There was - next to the toilet there was a hose that appeared to have been - well didn't appear to be, that had been cut and water was flowing into the vessel freely through that hose. And so presumably by then the water was below that hose?……Yes. Would there have been a point in your experience on the vessel when it would have been above the hose?……Oh, definitely. When I first got on the vessel the water level was, you know, above that hose, absolutely. All right, now if you could look at P3 please and photograph 64 -

HIS HONOUR: That's the -

MR ELLIS SC: Large volume, ladies and gentlemen, the first set of photos. (Resuming): As always I'm out of - one too late, perhaps please, Constable Lawler. Does that seem familiar to you?……Yes, the door on the left of that photograph is the door into the bathroom/toilet. Okay. And 54 is that the scene as you enter the toilet?……Yes, that's right. And as you enter did you - could you see the source of the water?……I couldn't see the source of water, no. No, it's - the pipe I'm referring to is over behind that - behind that toilet, or beside the toilet I guess, between it and the cupboard. Right. And is that show, not in 55 but - not in 56, 57?……Yes, that's the hose I'm talking about. Okay. So that's a view of the far side of the toilet, a close up view of the far side of the toilet, I suppose?....Yes, if you were standing facing the toilet, that would be on the left of it. And that pipe is not immediately apparent to you as you enter the toilet area?....No. No it's concealed by the toilet itself. Thank you. And photograph 57 shows still some water coming out, and 58 a closeup of the pipe as you found it?....Yes. Now, there's actually a water flow shown there - was it heavier than that when you saw it?....Oh, water was flowing as the diameter of the pipe when I saw it.


Right. Whooshing in?....Yeah, absolutely it was - it was as - you know, as fast as the flow could be. Did you take some steps or were you able to take some step in relation to that?....Yes, I located a tap - a sea cock behind the - that cupboard face. Yes, when you say "that cupboard face" is that the one shown in photograph 55?...Yes, as you look at that - as you look at those cupboards in photograph 55, if you were to open the door on the right and then you would find that sea cock further round to the right behind the cupboard face. Okay. And by sea cock - what do you mean?...I mean a valve, a stop valve that would - Sorry - you go - ….No - that would allow sea water to come into the vessel for whatever reason. And no doubt there are different sizes but is this typical of the mechanism of it?....Yes, it is. I'll show you that so you can show us how they work please?.....That is what typically would be referred to as a sea cock or a stop tap, maybe - it's a - the handle is simply a 90 degree turn to operate it and "Open" with these valves is always in line with the hose itself and naturally 'closes' is across it and they operate - it operates by spinning a ball, if you like, inside of the valve that has a hole drilled through it, so when it's in that position, it allows water to flow through, and as you close it off, it turns that ball 90 degrees and stops the water flowing in. Obviously that ball's got very small clearances inside to make it water-tight. Yes. All right, I tender that, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): And in relation to the seacock that you found in the cupboard that was connected I presume to the hose which had been cut what did you do?……I - I shut it down as best I could. It was - I was able to close it I would say two thirds of the way before it became quite stiff.


Right…….And it was stiff enough that I needed to get a - I used a multigrip style tool to get some leverage on it to try and close it off properly. All right. What, in your experience, makes these things go stiff, they're brass?……They can - if they're left open they can - small muscles or seaweed can grow inside the valves making them difficult to close. And this was, as far as you could tell, raw seawater that was coming in?……Yes. Thank you. Okay. Before we leave that, those photographs showing a flow of water, was that what you could achieve, the best you could achieve?……Yes, I couldn't get it - I couldn't get it completely closed but those - that was as best as I could - I could get it to close. Yes…….So there was still, you know, there remained that small trickle coming into the vessel when I'd finished with it. Now did you find any other source of water coming in?……Yes, we - as the water level - I should ask who 'we' was at this stage, who was looking, if anyone, with you?……Yeah, on the vessel with me at that stage was also Constable Ben Cunningham - Yes…….- among other police officers. As the water level in the vessel had, you know, almost been reduced to nothing through the pumping mechanisms we had in place we could hear more water trickling into the vessel and I was present when Constable Cunningham located another seacock in a floor compartment adjacent to that toilet. Okay. Is it shown - you've got the photos there, is it shown in photograph 53, the compartment that you refer to which - of the seacock?……I can't be sure if that's the compartment there of it's one slightly after that - slightly back toward the saloon. I understand, yeah. …….It was - it's in that - if it's not that compartment there - Yeah.…….- there's another - there's another opened compartment slightly toward the stern of the vessel from there. Okay. So it's that sort of compartment?…….Yes.


Perhaps if you could have a look at the photograph - well no, first I'll - I'll just show you another photograph, which isn't in evidence yet - does that appear to be a photograph of the - of the sea - of the compartment to which you refer?…….Yes, it is. Thank you. I tender that, your Honour?


MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): And I ask you, just - just to - just keep that for a minute, Constable Lawler, after the exhibit number is put on it, and go back to photograph 50 of Constable Redman's photos that the ladies and gentlemen have been looking at in that series -…….You did say 50, is that right? Yes.…….Yeah - yes. And does that help us?…….It's certainly not the - not the compartment right up in the - in the bow there, the triangular shaped compartment. Yeah.…….There is another compartment further - further back toward the - the stern from the compartment you can see at the bottom of photograph 50. Okay. All right. …….No, I'm sorry, looking at 53, I'm confident it's - it's inside that compartment. Yes, there are features in common, aren't there, with the photographs -…….Yes. - that you have in your hand?…….Yes, it is. So we can say that the one in 50, and the one in 53, which is closest, I think to the compartment, is the - is the one in question?…….Yes, that's right.

HIS HONOUR: So the - the floor compartments closer to the photographer in photos 50 and 53 are the ones -


HIS HONOUR: - that you're talking about?



MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Right. We haven't got to the stage where we can tender copies, I don't think, of the - yes, we've got some copies for the jury, your Honour, of photograph 17, the photograph that the Constable has identified, so perhaps they could be distributed, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right. What you're getting, ladies and gentlemen, should go to the back of the smaller blue folder of photographs, right at the back, and at this stage it's exhibit P47 but it's got the number 17 on it.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. (Resuming): So is this the view as you saw it?……Yes. Can you describe what we see there then?……The - there's a number of hoses in there clearly but the valve to which I'll refer is the one basically at the centre of the photograph with a blue handle. All right……And the greenie coloured oxidisation on top of the valve. Okay. And from the greenie oxidised brass or metal extends a hose?……Yes, that's right. And how long does that hose extend?……At the point where you can see the small white piece of wire I think it is, just at the bottom or below it on the photograph, it ends about there. It ends about there…….Yes. So what purpose does it serve, if any?……In that form it would serve no purpose. Right. And was this letting (indistinct words)?......It was, yes. It had been opened?……Yes. Okay. So in your experience do seacocks let in water usually serve a purpose on vessels?……Usually they do, yes. What sort of purposes do they serve?……Typically they're for plumbing systems, like a toilet for argument sake that might use seawater for flushing, for a deck wash system, for a hose that would pump seawater on to help clean the vessel or for engine cooling system.


Right. So this - and when they're used they're connected obviously to those systems?……Yes. So the presence of this, not obviously connected to anything and not serving any obvious purpose, what did that indicate to you?……It - I thought that it had been at one time or another part of some form of plumbing system but it was - that system was clearly no longer in use. Yeah, all right. Now we see the compartment apparently uncovered did you see any evidence of there having been a cover?……I don't recall having seen the specific cover for that hatch. Right. Do you have any opinion as to what may have happened to the cover had there been one?……I think that it was - it was likely that it floated off when the vessel was full of water because as I walked through the vessel there were other floor panels that had lifted - Yes……- that I assumed for the same reason, so I'm of the view that it floated off when the vessel was full of water. All right. Is that not unusual that compartments would be covered simply by a cover that stays in place by gravity?……Absolutely, gravity holds those sort of - those hatches in place, they're typically not fastened in any fashion. So access can be gained to them quickly, I presume?……Yes, they're usually covered by carpet, so it would be if you needed access it would be a matter of lifting some carpet and up would come the panel. So is it the case that in your opinion this was an unusual feature, a seacock connected to nothing, is that right?……Yes. And not an obvious thing either because it - well would it have been - to know it was there would that require any particular knowledge of the vessel in your opinion?……I would've thought to know that was there an intimate knowledge of that particular vessel would've been required.


Thank you…….Certainly looking at it from above it wasn't obvious that it was there in fact or that the pipe went to nowhere. No, or that it would be a source of running water should you wish to introduce it to the vessel?……Not at all, not at all. Thank you. Oh that's - yes, my learned junior reminds me - this little pipe that we see coming off the seacock, it seems - you say it ends there, was that ending in a cut?……Yes, it'd been cut at some time. Did that appear to you to be a fresh cut?……No, no, not at all. As opposed to the one on the toilet, did that appear to you to be a fresh cut?……No, no, there was very obvious differences between - between those two, this one had been cut some time ago. Okay, and the one in the toilet fresh?……Appeared very fresh. Thank you. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Lawler, if a yacht that had been built in the nineteen eighties was modified to change its plumbing system, for whatever reason, there are two things that you would do with a seacock such as that you've described. First of all, you would simply make sure it was in the off position and cover it up - correct?…….Yes. Or alternatively, you could remove it, but that would mean that you're going to have to patch the hole in the hull?…….That's correct. And the cheapest and more practical outcome would be simply to leave the seacock in situ not being used?…….That would be right. And that wouldn't be terribly uncommon on older boats, particularly those that have modified?…….It's not something I've seen, but I can't - I wouldn't expect it would be uncommon, no. Because the expense of removing it would far outweigh any other cost, wouldn't it?…….Maybe it would, yes. You're going to have to patch the hull, aren't you?…….Yes. And if the vessel was in survey, for instance, you'd probably have to have it resurveyed to satisfy all (indistinct words due to coughing)?…….I don't know whether you'd have to have it resurveyed or not. But in any event, that's a possibility. Now, of course, you've got no idea as to whether on the 26th of January 2009, or on the days previous, the hatches that were obviously used there, were open or not?…….No. No. And you have no idea what works were carried out on the boat by the owner or anybody else in the preceding days?…….No. Thank you. Now the way in which this particular toilet was fitted on the boat, and which is depicted in photographs 53 - sorry, 54 and 57, it's not particularly unusual, was it?…….I wouldn't think so, no. No. In fact, the methodology by which the toilet has been fitted onto that boat is a very common methodology, you've got to get the water to the toilet -…….Yes. - and the water has got to come through a hole in the hull?…….Yes. Through a seacock into a hose and get into a position where it can then be flushed through the system?…….Yes.


Pretty stock standard stuff, isn't it?…….Yes. Thank you. And the actual fittings that were used, the handle you've described is a stock standard fitting?....Yes. Right. Seacocks on boats such as a cruising yacht are commonly concealed, aren't they?.....Yes. They're concealed either behind cupboards or a - in the floors - correct?...Yes. They're pretty ugly things, aren't they?.....Absolutely. And whilst on commercial boats they may be out in the open, the common practice is to conceal them by one means or another on pleasure boats…..Yes. And where sea cocks are coming in from the hull, it is important that the owner or the operator can have quick access to the seacocks in case of emergency?.....I would think so, yes. And the last thing you would want to be doing in an emergency with water coming in, from say, a sea cock that's failed or become faulty in some way, is having to screw off a lot of panels to get to it?...Yes. And you'd agree with the proposition that most of them are behind cupboards with quick access panels?....Yes. Thank you. Now you arrived on the yacht when there was one uniformed constable onboard?...Yes. And that was Constable Stockdale, wasn't it?...Yes. So you're the second police officer to arrive….That's right. And when you got on board, did you see any ropes coming from a winch on the starboard side of the vessel going down over the top of the cock pit….I don't recall seeing any, I didn't take any notice. Can I show you - I'd ask the witness to have a look at P9 please. And if you would look at photograph 72, 73, 74 and 75 -

HIS HONOUR: This is the second set of photos in the large folder -


MR GUNSON SC: Just take your time please. Which one have you got in front of you?....74. Please start with 72 would you?...I don't have 72. I go from 71 - 74. It's out of order. Just take your time…….72, you asked, is that right? Yes……Yes. Would you please look at 72 for me…….Yes. Now that shows a view of the cockpit of the vessel leading down into the saloon, is that right? Or more correctly it's the beginning of the cockpit going down into the wheelhouse or pilothouse -……..Yes. - then going down into the saloon?……Beyond that into the saloon, yes. Right. And presumably when you arrived there were steps as we see in the photograph at the bottom, they were still there?……Yes. And presumably when you went down into the saloon the steps were still there?……I think the steps - I can't be positive but I'm fairly sure the steps weren't - weren't in place out of the - out of the wheelhouse into the saloon. All right, so that would be the bottom set of steps?……Yes. All right. Now - I don't want you to speculate about these ropes and anything at all about them, but you see there's a rope running from a winch on the starboard side down into the - through the wheelhouse or pilothouse down into the saloon?……Yes. And you see at the bottom of the photograph there's a rope that appears to run from the cockpit down into the pilothouse and then continue on down into the saloon?……Yes. Have a look then, please, at photograph 73…….Yes. And you get a closer view of that?……Yes. And have a look at photograph 74…….Yep.


And photograph 75……Yes. I just want to ask you this question, were those ropes in that position when you went on board that boat? It'd be something you'd remember, wouldn't it?……I don't recall - I don't recall ropes getting in my way. And those ropes are in a position where they would get in your way, wouldn't they?……One of them I'd have thought would have. Yes. And there's no apparent reason for those ropes to be hanging down from a winch into the pilothouse and then into the saloon?……Sorry, looking back at photograph 73 - - Yes, thank you……- to go back to those photographs, I wouldn't have had difficulty getting beyond that rope. You wouldn't have had difficulty?……No. But it's the sort of thing you'd remember wouldn't you?……Oh -

MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, can I just have a quiet word to my learned friend?


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): But they weren't there in that position when you were there?……I can't be positive whether they were there or not. And similarly, if you look please at photo - no, I don't need to go there. Just to come back to the position a disused seacock is likely to be perfectly safe in the position in which it's installed in the enclosed position - sorry, in the closed position unless there's some catastrophic failure of it?……Yes. Thank you. No further questions.




MR ELLIS SC: Mr Shapiro, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour, I call Mr Alan Goodfellow. That's at page 89 of the first volume, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat.

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your full name is Alan Alexander Goodfellow, is that right?…….Yes. And what's your occupation?…….I'm a shipwright, that's my trade, I'm a leading hand foreman at Taylor Brothers. Thank you. And were you working for Taylor Brothers in late 2008 and early 2009?…….Yes, I was. Thank you. And were you contacted by Ms Sue Neill-Fraser in relation to her yacht, the Four Winds?…….Yeah, she contacted me some time, I'm not sure when, before Christmas in 2008 to slip her boat and do some maintenance on it. Okay. And did that occur?…….She - we spoke again in July - in June - yeah, sorry, early January the following year and made arrangements to do some work on her boat. And that's 2009?…….2009. Okay. And what were those arrangements?…….That we were to meet her at the Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania. We decided that we wouldn't slip the boat we'd do the maintenance on the motor first, because we needed to run it and warm it. So we arranged to meet her at the Royal Yacht Club on, I think it was the 14th of January. Okay. And when you went to the Four Winds where was - where was the yacht?…….We went - we got a phone call saying that she was having (indistinct word) with the vessel and they weren't able to get it to the yacht club, so we met them, she and Bob, at our Battery Point slip yard and we went out to the vessel. Okay. How did you get out there?…….We went out in a little rubber boat with an outboard on the back of it.


And who was driving that boat?…….I think Bob was. Okay. And that's -…….Mr Chappell. Thank you. And who else was in the dinghy?…….There was myself, Nathan Karakowiak from Taylor Brothers and Ms Neill-Fraser and Bob Chappell. Thank you. And - so you went out to the Four Winds, and what did you do on the Four Winds?…….We bordered the Four Winds and, I think, Sue - Ms Neill-Fraser's daughter was there and we were introduced to her, and then we ascertained that there was issues with the steering, so we proceeded to work on the steering, bleeding the hydraulics. Okay. All right. And after you had fixed the steering, what happened next?…….After we'd fixed the steering we just proceeded to take the boat to the Royal Yacht Club - it was - the breeze was quite fresh so I steered the boat and I took it to the Yacht Club. Was there a reason that Ms Neill-Fraser or Mr Robert Chappell didn't take their boat to the Yacht Club?……I think she just - she wasn't confident because it was quite windy. So you drove the boat?……So I took the boat - it was with Nathan and David Harris as well. Thank you. And once the boat was at the Yacht Club was some more work done on it?……We proceeded to do the maintenance to the engine I think that was required for the hundred hour service. And when you say "we" who's we?……Myself and Nathan Krakowiak and David Harris had joined us. And did that require you to remove any panels?……The only panel we removed was probably the top of one of the bunks so we could access the steering in an aft cabin that I recall. Thank you. And did you speak with Ms Fraser - Ms Neill-Fraser, sorry, about maintenance of the yacht?……Yeah, we chatted about general stuff, I don't recall the specifics.


And did you - well did you say anything to her in relation to that conversation?……I suppose in - well while David and Nathan were doing work on the boat I did remind her that her chatting to me was, you know, I was charging her an hourly rate. Thank you. And what - was anything said about their views of the Four Winds?……I think they were probably a little bit disappointed. Why do you say that?……I suppose they found - like most boats they found a few more problems with it than they originally anticipated. Was there a discussion about money that they'd spent on the yacht?……Only in regards to the work that they'd done to the motor in Queensland. And who was that discussion between, Ms Neill - ……Myself and Ms Neill-Fraser. Thank you. Was she happy about that or -…….I think she was a bit disappointed with the amount of money that was spent and the time it took. And did you get an impression about Mr Chappell's view of the yacht?……Oh he seemed quite happy with the whole deal, he was sitting in the cockpit chuffing on his cigar - on his pipe. Thank you. Did you form a view about how confident he was around the boat?

MR GUNSON SC: Well it can only be based on what he observed or what was said to him.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes. (Resuming): Well did you observe anything in relation to Mr Chappell's confidence on the boat?……He probably wasn't over confident, but I didn't know whether - and again it's only my view - whether he was - because of his age, he just seemed a little fragile and, I don't know, he wasn't running around on the boat, but I don't know. Thank you……It's a hard - hard - again it's an opinion. And - thank you, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Nothing further. Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON: Basically what he did was he left it to Ms Neill-Fraser to discuss with you what needed to be done on board the boat?……More or less, yes. And he sat down, as you said, and he was pretty happy chuffing on his pipe in the cockpit?……Yep. And there's nothing unusual about that from your point of view?……I didn't think so, I mean I - I'd only met the guy that day. Thank you. And the last thing you'd want is two customers telling you what they wanted and perhaps disagreeing about it and you not knowing what your instructions were?……Probably not, but you deal with what you get given. They told you that they'd paid a lot of money for the yacht and that they had found some problems with it that they hadn't anticipated when they bought it?……That would be correct. And one of the first issues they had was they had to spend about twenty thousand dollars getting the motor serviced and into order in Queensland before the delivery voyage started?……Yes. And that's a fair amount of money to spend on an engine for a boat that size isn't it?……I would think it is, yeah. And you'd get a pretty good service for twenty grand wouldn't you?……I would think so. Yes. And she told you also that there'd been problems on the boat coming down the coast from Queensland to Tasmania particularly with fuel problems?……Yes. And she outlined a significant number of problems, none of them major, that had developed on the run?……Yeah, it was mainly the fuel was the big hiccup I think. Yes. And she told you the boat had been for sale in Queensland for I think over two years and just lying not used?……She may have. All right. You don't deny that?……Well I can't deny or agree. Thank you. She told you in fact in a conversation at one stage that there had been some problems with the boat in Queensland -

MR ELLIS SC: Well are you going to - ask my learned friend not to go to the areas we've previously discussed that were hearsay.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Did she tell you any stage that she had seen any problems with the boat in Queensland, that is that she saw herself?……Not that I'm aware of. Thank you. Specifically did she say to you she'd seen any problems with people doing anything to the boat in Queensland that was -

MR ELLIS SC: My learned friend is trying to go there another way. Your Honour has ruled about this and -

HIS HONOUR: Well do we need to discuss this in the absence of the jury?

MR ELLIS SC: Only if my learned friend is persisting with it, your Honour, yes.

MR GUNSON SC: I'm not going to persist with it. Yes, I've no further questions.







HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Shapiro.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour, I call Mr Nathan Krakowiak.


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Would you please state your full name?……Nathan Francis Krakowiak. Thank you, and what's your occupation?……Mechanical fitter. Who do you work for?……Taylor Bros Slipway & Engineering. And did you work for them in 2009?……Yes, I did. And in January 2009 did you do some work on a yacht called the Four Winds?……Yes, I did. And how did that come about?……Well my boss just told - we got a phone call from - I'm not sure who originally rang my boss - and he told me to go down there and meet the people that owned the yacht. Were you working with anybody that day?……Alex Goodfellow. And who did you meet?……Bob and Sue. And that's Robert Chappell and -…….Yeah, sorry, yeah. That's all right, and Ms Neill-Fraser?……Yep. And so down there, where did you meet them?……At Battery Point. Thank you. And when you say 'down there' where did you meet them?…….At Battery Point. Okay. And how did you get to the Four Winds?…….On the tender off the Four Winds. Okay. What does that look like?…….A small inflatable. Thank you. And who drove the tender?…….Robert.


And what was - what was the work that you went out to do on the Four Winds?…….Originally we had to go out and fix the steering gear, so we could bring it into the marina so we could service the engines on it. Okay. And did you fix the steering gear?…….Yeah, yeah. And then was the yacht taken to the marina?…….Yeah, we took it into the marina and tied it up at the berth and continued with our work. And who - who drove it into the marina?…….Alex Goodfellow - or Alan Goodfellow. And was there a reason that he drove rather than the owners?…….It was quite breezy at the time and Sue Neill-Fraser said she wasn't overly confident with driving it, so Alan did. Okay. Thank you. And what was the work that you did on the vessel when it was the marina?.......We had to do a service on the main engine and check - check the tappet settings and things like that and a hundred hour service on the generator. Okay. And how many days were you working on that vessel for?…….Oh, around three. Okay. Thank you. And - and did you take some photographs?…….Yes, I did. Why did you take those?…….Personal interest, my grandfather is building a boat and yes, a few ideas to go with his. Thank you. If the witness can be shown these photos please? Can you just have a look at those photographs for me? Are they the photographs you took?……Yes, they are. Thank you. I tender those and I also tender the CD to go with them. ASSOCIATE: P48 and P49.



MR SHAPIRO: Thank you. We have some copies for the jury also, thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Right, well, ladies and gentlemen, these should go in your small blue folders after the Commonwealth Bank photo. The Commonwealth Bank photo goes behind Tab 1 and these go behind Tab 2.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. (Resuming): Do you remember what - what the date of the day that you took these photos was?……It's around the 15th. Okay. And is that when the yacht was on the mooring or at the marina?……At the marina. Okay, thank you. Now can you just tell us what that first photo is a photo of?……The main - the main living area on the vessel. And you can see through that door there that it looks like there's some panelling off the floor?……Yeah. Do you know - …..That's where the - where you go through to the for'ead cabins where the sewerage system is underneath - or the sewerage tanks underneath the deck plates. Do you know who removed that or -…….No. And was that like that the whole time you worked on that yacht?……I don't think so, no. Can you just flick through to the next photograph, what's that a photo of?……That's the wheelhouse looking out towards the cockpit. Thank you, and the next photograph, is that just a close-up from the previous photo?……Yes. Do you want to just jump back to the previous photo so we can see where the - thank you. And the next one, is that a photo of the wheelhouse?……Yeah, the wheelhouse. And the next photo?……That's the galley. Thank you. And then the last photograph?……That's the photo from before - or looking from the main living area through to the for'ard cabins again where the deck plates are up. Thank you. Will one of those buttons at the bottom there rotate the picture to the right?……Rotate it somehow.


Thank you. Now while you were working on the yacht was - well were the owners present?……Off and on they were. And did you see Ms - what was Ms Neill-Fraser doing on the yacht when she was there?……Anything that a normal yacht owner would do, like going through bits and pieces, yeah, she was in amongst that at some stage. When you say that what are you referring to?……Oh the - where the deck plates are up. So where the floor is missing?……Yeah, where the flooring's missing, yep. And did she - did she speak with you in relation to that area?……She asked - asked about it, but it wasn't - wasn't our job to - wasn't part of our contract to do that. Yeah, like I explained a few little bits and pieces, like gate valves, seacocks and things like that which are open to the outside of the vessel. So she asked you about a seacock in relation to that area?……Yep. Thank you. And what did you tell her about seacocks?……Just how they work and basically just a gate valve that opens up to the outside of the hull. Thank you, your Honour.



<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Both Mr Chappell and Ms Neill-Fraser indicated to you that there were problems with the electrics on the boat?...Yep. And they didn't point out any specific issues though…..No. Nothing specific. You've said that they were on the boat on and off or doing things you'd expect of owners - now that's my words - …Yep. Do you know the sort of things they were both doing?...Just cleaning up bits and pieces, things like that. Was Mr Chappell doing any work on the boat as such?...Not that I recall, no. Did they discuss with you the breakdowns they'd had coming down the coast from Queensland, across Bass Strait and into Tasmania?....No. Did they discuss with you the nature of the work that was done on the vessel in Queensland?....Only the main engine work and a few things. Now you said that you told her about the gate valves or as you called them, the sea cocks - the same - they're interchangeable words aren't they, or expressions?....Well, a seacock is what opens to the outside of the vessel and a gate valve is just a valve that can be used in any application. All right. And you basically told her what the set up was - and how they generally worked….Yes. And didn't discuss any specific ones with her?.....No. Thank you. And you've said on a previous occasion, you didn't recall seeing fire extinguisher on the boat……No. Excuse me. No, I didn't. Mostly definitely didn't see a large one in the corner near the laundry?.....Not that I recall, no. And given the nature of the work you do, you would look around for fire extinguishers to - in case there was a fire while you worked?….Yeah, we kind of keep an eye out for that kind of thing.

And it was clearly a fire extinguisher shown in one of the photographs we saw a moment ago under the stairs…Yep.


You didn't see that at the time, in the sense that you weren't - when you went looking for a fire extinguisher you hadn't noticed that one?.....No, I hadn't noticed that one. You tend to - Thank you. Getting a yacht of that size into a marina such as the Royal Yacht Club does require a fair amount of experience, particularly when you're operating in a wind such as was blowing that day?…….Yeah. Mm, thank you. I've no further questions.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: No, nothing in re-examination, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you, Mr Karakowiak, you are free to go.



MR SHAPIRO: Call Kim Eiszele, if it please? It's page 3 of volume 1.


HIS HONOUR: Have a seat. Yes?

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Thank you. Your name is Kim Eiszele?…….Yeah. And you're a photographer?…….Yeah. And you work for the Mercury?…….(no audible reply) And you were working for the Mercury as a photographer on the 27th of January 2009?…….Yes. And did you attend Marieville Esplanade on that day?…….Yes. At what time were you down there?…….Oh, it might have been early in the morning - But you -…….- earlier, yeah, mid - mid morning. And did you take some photos?…….Yes. Thank you. Can you have a look at these please? Are those the photos you took?…….Yes. Thank you, I tender those and the CD.



MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): Is that the first photo you took?……Yeah. And you didn't know who any of those people were particularly?……No, not really. Thank you. And if you can move to the next photo. That's another photo you took?……(No audible answer). Thank you. And the next one. Again you took that photo?……Yes. Thank you. And the next one that's a close up from the previous - …..Yeah.


And again the next photo is another close up?……Yeah. Thank you. And we do have some copies for the jury.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well these, ladies and gentlemen, these go in the blue folder behind Tab 5.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you.




We call Miss Kim Cartwright, volume 1, page 46 - sorry, 146, thank you.


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Is your full name Kim Cartwright?……Yes. Thank you. And what's your date of birth?……The 22nd June 1961. Thank you. Now on Australia Day in 2009 you were at Short Beach, or sometimes called the dog beach at Marieville Esplanade?……Yes. Did you take a couple of photos when you were there?……That's right. Thank you. If the witness can be shown these, please. Are they your photographs?……They certainly are. Thank you. Do you know what - approximately what time you took those photographs?……It was actually later in the day, late, very late afternoon, early evening, mm. And just to be clear, which end of the beach was it you were taking them from?……This is from the north side of - the north end of the beach. So the end closest to Battery Point?……Yes. Thank you. I tender those and the CD. ASSOCIATE: P52 and P53.


HIS HONOUR: And these go behind Tab 4, ladies and gentlemen.

MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): And is that first photo of yours just a photo from the beach looking out at the yachts?……Yes. Thank you. And if you can eclipse the next photo. Is that a photo of your dogs in the foregrounds and the yacht's in the background?……Yes, that's right.


Thank you. And if we can go to the final photograph. And that's a zoomed in photograph from your second photograph, is that right?……Yes. Thank you, your Honour.




HIS HONOUR: Yes Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Call Timothy Farmer please, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes, Mr Ellis?

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Farmer, you're Timothy Ross Farmer?…….I am. You live in Sandy Bay?…….Yes. You work for Qantas?…….Yes. And you're the father of at least one daughter who runs, or rowed last year, is that right?…….Yes. What's the daughter's name?…….Lucy Farmer. Yeah. And did you take Lucy to rowing training on the 27th of January last year?…….Yes, I did. What time did you do that? …….I arrived at the rowing shed at about approximately 5:40 in the morning. In the morning - is that usual?…….That's the normal start time, yeah. Right. …….Or 5:45 is the start time. Okay. Were you two the first there -…….Yes. - for that club - what club does she row for?…….Lucy rows from the Sandy Bay Rowing Club. Mm hm. And they have boatsheds there?…….We do - yes. And that's where you went to, is it, the Sandy Bay Rowing Club - …….Yes, yes. - boatsheds at Marieville Esplanade?…….Yes. Yes. All right. What did you - did you see anything unusual that morning?…….When we arrived at the - in the parking spots, I looked towards the water because we - we always check the water for the rowing.


Yeah.…….And I noticed a inflatable dinghy nudged into the rocks in front of the - in front of the rowing shed. Was it a large one?…….I'd say a small one. Okay. …….Yeah. And what did you - anything?…….Yes, I - as soon as I saw it there I - I walked down to the rocks and grabbed the painter from the front of it and - and tied it up to the rocks so it wouldn't drift - drift away. Okay. And to those of us who never knew or forgot, what's the painter?…….A painter is the rope on the front of the boat that you would normally tie it up to a jetty or - or wherever you want it moored. Okay. Where did you grab it from?…….From the boat itself. So it was inside the boat, was it?…….Yes. Would it be right to say that if a boat had simply come away from being tied then the painter won't be inside the boat it would be outside the boat?…….I believe that would be the case, yes. Yes. All right. So you tied it up to the ropes - sorry, into the rocks, and do you remember whether it had an outboard motor - I think you said -…….Yeah, it had an outboard motor on the back, yes. Do you remember whether that was raised or not?…….I believe it was in the raised position, so as if it wasn't being used. Yes. Had you seen that dinghy before?…….Yes, I saw the dinghy the previous day. Yeah.…….Yeah, on Australia Day. Where was it then?…….It was tied to one of the - one of the posts that stick out of the sand on Short Beach. Right. Was that unusual?…….Yes, it is unusual because - well that area is used for - for launching and - and retrieving boats, but to have one actually moored there is unusual.


Yeah. Okay. I want to show you a couple of photos please, P03 please - which is the large folder, ladies and gentlemen - maybe 70 in , if you could have a look at that Mr Farmer? Do you see photograph 70 - it's a little bit -…….Yes. - washed out, I suppose, 70 and 71. Do they appear to be of the dinghy you saw?…….Yes, I believe that's the dinghy I saw. Okay. And does that appear to be in the position you tied it up?…….Yes, yes, it does. I think the stern of the boat may have drifted around more, I think the - it was more perpendicular to the rocks - Yeah.…….- when I grabbed it. Okay. It - correct me if I'm wrong, in 71 it looks as though it might be a little bit up on the rocks, was that what happened?…….Yeah, slightly. Yes. But when you first saw it was it up on the rocks or had it been nudged - …….No. - it wasn't on the rocks?…….No, because it was bumping the rocks, it was physically moving in the water - Floating free?……Yep. Of the rocks?……Yep. Okay. And if - have you got the big volume - the whole volume there? Thank you. The ones taken by Mr Needham at P40, if Mr Farmer could be shown those, please, it's in the back of that big volume, ladies and gentlemen. Do you see photographs 1 and ?……Yes. Are they something that you've spoken about?……Yes, they're the posts at Short Beach that the dinghy was tied to. The day before?……Yes. That being Australia Day, is that right?……That's correct. Were there many people around at this - as you can recall?……When I saw the boat that - Yes…….Yes there was, we - we'd just returned from the Royal Hobart - sorry, the Sandy Bay Regatta -


Yep…….- and we were retrieving the club's rowing eight from the water to put it back in the shed. And I'm not sure, you probably said so, but what time did you see it that day?……That day, it would've been around about noon. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr Farmer, I think I've got you to the point where you tied the dinghy up -……Correct, yep. - on the 27th, what happened next?……We proceeded to go rowing. Okay. How do you do that?……We - the girls rig the boats ready to go - Yes…….- and they take the boats to the water, row out, the rowing coach and myself go out - went out in an aluminium tender to follow them out through the - through the boats. A motorised one presumably?……Yes, yep. And who's the rowing coach?……Daryl Balding. Daryl Balding, okay. And how - do you know what time you went out on the water then?……I'd say just before - just before six o'clock. Yep, and did you come back?……Yes. When was that?……Round about seven. Did you see anything unusual?……Yeah, as we were coming back through the moored boats we were coming back from the direction probably slightly - halfway between the casino and Battery Point, straight in, we saw the boat, the Four - down by bow, obviously taking in water. Four something, was it?……Yeah. That's okay. And that was a boat moored off Marieville Beach?……Yes. Right, thank you. Did you see any people in uniform at about that time?……Yes, there were a number of police officers there at that stage.


Right. Yes, thank you, Mr Farmer.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Mr Farmer, when you went out at 6 o'clock in the dinghy following the rowing crew did you go past the yacht Four Winds then?……No. Which direction did you take?……We headed along the shore of Battery Point towards the city. So you stayed close to the shore and didn't go out - …..Correct. - where the yacht moored but came back past it?……Yes. Do you remember looking at it all as you went along close to the shore and then you could - obviously would have been able to see it from where you were?……I don't recall looking at it at all on the way out. And I imagine - no, I withdraw that. Was the tide going in or out when you found this dinghy?……I don't recall to be honest. Do you recall whether the tide was full or half full or what?……I believe it would have been quite high because I didn't have to go down the rocks very far to reach the dinghy. Thank you. And was there a wind blowing at the time?……A very little breeze because otherwise it would be too hard for the girls to row otherwise we wouldn't have gone out. Yes, all right. And when you first saw it the dinghy was basically bobbing free but touching the rocks?……Yes. Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: Call Daryl Balding please, your Honour.



<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr Balding, you are Daryl john Balding?.....Yes. You live at Howrah, you're retired but you're also a rowing coach, is that right?.....Yes. And last year were you the coach of the Sandy Bay Rowing Club?......Yes. Are you this year?....Yes. Last year on 27th January, did you go to the club to take training?....Yes, I arrived about a quarter to six. About a quarter to six. Is that usual?...Absolutely. Did you meet anyone there?.....One of the parents was there and several of the rowers, of course, and off we went. Was the parent Mr Farmer?....Yes. Did he point out something to you?....Yes, he - when he'd arrived a little bit before me, he'd found an inflatable dinghy with an outboard motor floating just off the beach and he'd secured it to the rocks, adjacent to the rowing club. Did you see it?.....Yes. Did you go into training, hit the water, at about six o'clock?.....Yes. And you're in the speed boat as I understand it….Yes. And - …Mr Farmer as well. Mr Farmer's in with you. Which way did you go?....We went along the shoreline towards the wharf area, basically north. And you came back at about what?...Getting on towards seven. Did you notice anything on the way back?....Yeah, we came back wider and - outside the boats and noticed a boat that well - appeared to be sinking. Right. What made it look like it was sinking?......Yep.


What made it look like it was sinking?....It was well down at the bow. Did you see anyone on board?....No. Were there any other boats with it, or dinghys or anything?.....No. No. All right, did you keep going into shore?....Yeah, we were sort of getting the mobile phone out to ring the police and let them know, but as we got a bit further, we noticed that there were police already on the shore, so we proceeded in. Right. And did you speak to the police there - or at least a policeman there?...Yes, well there were two there and my wife had already offered to take them out to the boat, she was one of the rowers, she got in before us, and the policeman took up the offer and took him out to the boat. Okay so you took him out?…….Yes. In the same boat that you followed - done the training in?…….Yes. And do you remember which side of the boat that you took him to?…….We pulled up on the starboard side. Okay. And did you both get out and on the boat on that-…….No he- - point?…….- went onboard. He was onboard?…….Yeah. Did you - did you notice anything about - when he went onboard, did you notice anything about the boat besides the sinking?…….Well obviously a lot - all the water inside. Yeah. No, before you got on did you notice -…….Oh, sorry. - did you notice anything about he got about the boat?…….Oh he got a good look around and then went down in the cabin area. Okay. Did - did he - did he appear to open a day to the cabin or did it appear to be opened?…….I think it might have been opened. All right. Did he come back out?…….He came back out and asked me to come onboard because there was a belief that there was a gentleman onboard and - because I had gumboots on -


Yeah.…….- he asked if I'd sort of walk into the forward cabin area and have a look to see if the guy was there. Okay. …….However, the water was a bit deep to do that - Was it?…….- it would have gone well above the gumboots. Yeah, all right, so you got onboard. What did you notice before you got into the cabin - or, you didn't go into the cabin, I don't think, did you?…….Went down into the cabin, yes, I did. Okay. What did you notice before you got to the cabin?…….Well the police had already asked me - asked me (indistinct word) on the steps to avoid a couple of spots of blood on the steps. Ah ha -.…….Just to avoid walking on those. Yeah.…….And - And you saw the blood on the steps?…….Yes. Right. Did you see anything in the cabin, where the steering - the steering wheel was?…….Other - other than the water, I could - I looked - saw the ignition key there - I just turned the key on to see if there was any power and so on, because I couldn't hear the bilge pumps working or anything. Yeah.…….And there was an indicator light indicating there was power. Yeah. …….I turned it back off again, obviously didn't go into the water, but then left with the policeman and on the way out noticed on the wall at the back the switches for the bilge pump - Yes.…….- it was switched to an automatic - automatically on position. Right. So it was on the position for the bilge pump to work, and if there was any problem, being the ignition, you turned that on and they - they didn't work?…….Yeah. Okay. …….Well logically the pump should have been on anyway with the key turned off.


Yes, yeah, yeah, but turning it on made no difference -…….No. - to the bilge pumps?…….No. Okay. Did you open any hatches?……Yes, after - because we couldn't walk in the water we opened hatches, both the policeman and myself, to see if there was anyone on board and could see no one at all. Right. Did you notice anything about a gateway at the stern?……A gateway at the stern that goes down to a boarding grating, that was unlatched, which was fairly unusual, people tend to keep that latched up for security so no one fell overboard. Okay. Is that a usual thing to have a boarding cradle on a boat like that?……Yeah, fairly common, yeah. What - for those of us who don't know, what does it consist of?……Oh you bring your dinghy up to the stern of the boat and come in over the stern on a little boarding platform at the back of the boat. Right, okay. And you get up on that and then there's a gate, is there, to get onto the boat proper?……Basically a rail of the boat, yes. Okay, and what was it about that gate, it was unlocked?……It was like a little - a little latch or padbolt - Yes……- and that was - that was undone. I see…….So the gate was - could move quite freely. Yes. Right, I think that's all, thank you Mr Balding.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Just explain the last bits to his Honour and members of the jury, please, Mr Balding. Are you saying with respect to this gateway at the stern of the yacht that if somebody had leant against it it would have opened or are you saying that it wasn't locked to prevent people getting onto the boat?……No, there wouldn't be a look as such on it, it was just a little latch, a little sliding bolt. Actually those things open inwards. Yes…….Probably if you - I didn't lean on it, but most of them if you lean on them it is secured, it won't swing out. Yes, so what it means is if somebody had come to the boat at the boarding grate that they could easily get onto the boat by just pushing the gate open -…….Yep. - without having to undo the latch?……Right. There's no locking mechanism as such, is there?……No, no. And a person leaning against it from inside the boat wouldn't be at risk of the gate popping open and them falling in the water?……Usually not. I don't know exactly - the circumstances with that particular gate, but most, no. Most of them are as - most are as I've described?……Most, as I said, are not to swing out. Yes, thank you, I have no further questions.



MR SHAPIRO: I call Mr Norton Makepeace, it's at page 97.



<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Is your full name Norton John Makepeace?……Yes. And are you a self employed marine electrician?……Yes. And in December - well the end of December 2008 were you contacted by Ms Neill-Fraser?……Yes. And what was that about?……Um, she rang me to enquire about getting someone to have a look at some electrical problems they had on a boat called Four Winds, yeah. Okay. And as a result of that - ……As a result of that conversation we made arrangements to meet up - for me to meet them at the jetty so that I could be taken out to the boat to have a look at that boat and that was arranged for the 6th January. When you say 'them' who are they?……Oh, as in - she explained that she had a partner in the boat and they were going to organise to get me out to the boat. And did that happen?……Yeah, Bob Chappell came and collected me in the rubber dinghy and took me out to the boat, yes. All right. And what - sorry, what date did you say that was? I think you did say……The 6th January.9?……Yeah. Yeah, thank you. And when you got out to the boat what did you do?……Got onto the boat, Susanne was there and she introduced herself and that, because I hadn't actually met her until we got onto the boat, and then they proceeded to explain to me what had happened on their way down, coming across Bass Strait - And that's in relation to some problems they were having with the alternator?…….Yeah, the alternator had caught fire, started smoking, so they'd had to disconnect it and they needed some quoting and I had to do a fair bit of looking around to find out why the problem had occurred.


And when you say 'a fair bit of looking around' what did you physically have to do?…….Lift - had a look in the engine room by pulling the stairs out, so you could look in at the front of the engine. Having looked behind the switchboards and that sort of stuff to try and see what was going on, and because the boat had 240 volt electrics on it I said that I'd need to come back on the boat again with a qualified 240 volt electrician. Okay. You're just a 12 volt electrician?…….Just a 12 - 24 volt, yes. Okay. And how did you get access to these areas that you had to inspect - did you have to take panels off or -…….Not at that stage. We - I just had a quick look at what we could see just by lifting the floor up where it went into the engine room and the door to the engine room and just opened the switch panel up and we discussed what I thought needed doing and - and what had happened and then we made arrangements that I said that I would contact them and make arrangements to meet them again with someone else to give them an estimation on the job. Okay. And did that occur that you had another look at the boat?…….Yes, I gave her a ring a couple of days after that and organised a time to meet them and they were going to bring the boat into the Royal Yacht Club Marina, so that Jamie and myself could have a look over the boat and workout a price for them - Okay. …….- to do the job. And so you saw the yacht there at the marina?…….Yeah, saw the yacht there on the marina, it was a Friday morning, eleven o'clock I think the time was we were supposed to meet them there, and we had a look over the boat and Jamie's dad, who is also an electrician, came down as well because it was such a big job that it was going take the three of us to do it. Do you remember what date that was?…….Friday the 16th, I think it was, of January. Thank you. …….Yeah. And so on this second occasion, did you have to take panels off to inspect the wiring?…….Yes, we took a lot of panels off - off the boat. The panels hadn't been removed for a long time, like it took awhile to get some of these panels off because they'd been there for a long time. Okay. Did you find anything you didn't expect when you looked under all these panels?…….No, nothing that you wouldn't expect in a boat like that.


And did you leave the panels off or did you put them back on or - …….When we put the panels back on - because we'd sort of talked and they were sort of keen to go ahead to get repaired, we sort of said " oh, we'll just put a couple of screws in these panels," rather than like, ten, that help them on normally because they were pretty hard to get off and on. We did that and we discussed the quote, and they gave me the go-ahead on it. Okay and did you ever actually do the work?....No on the - that was on the Friday. On the Monday I received a phone call, and they'd had more problems with the boat apparently when they were leaving the marina and they decided to put on hold the electrical work because they were going to seek legal advice re the survey - they reckoned the survey wasn't up to scratch that was done when they purchased the boat. So who told you that?....Susan. Susan. And that was during a phone call you received?.....Yes. Thank you, your Honour.





<EXN - MR SHAPIROYour name is Rodney Howard?...Yes. And you're a water taxi operator?....Yes. And you own that business, do you?....Yes. And that business is operated here in Hobart?……Yes, correct. All right. Now if I can take you back to the 26th January 2009 did you take some people to the Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania at Marieville Esplanade on that day?……Yes, I did. And that was in your water taxi?……Yes. What time did you do that?……It would have been around 11:15. And did you notice anything as you - well did you notice a particular vessel as you went to the Royal Yacht Club?……Yeah, I noticed the Four Winds in particular with a tender hanging off the - tied off the stern. Okay……Just a glance and - I knew it was that vessel because I'd admired it a lot in previous trips around. I go past it quite often. Okay, thank you. And so where did you say the tender was?……Tied off - it was just lashed to the stern, just drifting on the stern of it. Did you see anybody aboard the Four Winds?……No, I didn't see any people. Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Yes, what time was that you saw it?……It would have been around 11:15 according to my log book. And can you describe the tender that you saw?……Well I didn't have a really close look at it, it was glancing - it - a white tender, 8, 10 feet long. Yes. And it was drifting off the stern on a rope?……Yes, tied up to the stern. And how far behind the boat might it have been?……I'd say 2 metres or so. All right. On a previous occasion you said it was possibly a fibreglass one?……Yeah, I didn't - as I say I didn't go close enough to visualise what - When interviewed by the police you certainly told them you thought it was possibly a fibreglass tender?……Possibly, yeah. And you said you didn't think it had a motor on it?……No, I don't think it did. No, you don't think it did. So you obviously know being a waterman the difference between a rubber boat, a rubber tender, and something of solid hull…..Yeah. And it certainly wasn't - you're not describing a rubber tender are you?……No, I don't think so. No…..No, it was a - yeah, a white tender, just looked like a normal blunt nose tender. When you say a 'tender' you mean a solid hulled boat as opposed to a rubber boat, inflatable?……Yeah. Well at a distance they look similar, but I don't - you know, I didn't really get - I can't judge the - might have been, say, five hundred metres away from it, I was. But the impression you were left with and the impression you told the police was that it was possibly fibreglass and you didn't think it had an outboard on it?……Yeah, that's right. Thank you.






MR ELLIS SC: Yes, I call Christopher Liaubon, your Honour.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr Liaubon, you're Christopher James Liaubon?……Yep. Are you a student?……Yes. You live in Battery Point?……I do. And were both those things the same last year?……They were. On the 26th January, Australia Day, were you asked to go somewhere?……I got a phone call in the morning about eleven o'clock and it was a friend, he wanted me to go to Sorell market and I declined the offer because it was an absolutely beautiful day, I remember, and I wanted to go sailing in my canoe, so - I know it was eleven o'clock because I went back through my phone registry prior to giving the statement. Yeah, so basically I live in Battery Point, Kelly Street, it's five minutes from the beach - Yep……- from Short Beach, and I drove down there - I must have got there between eleven thirty and twelve, I can't be certain because I don't have a watch, I don't wear a watch. But when I got there I remember seeing the white light grey Zodiac - Yeah.…….- on the sand, thinking it was unusual for something to be left unattended like that in that spot - and I've been - I've sailed down there before - Yes.…….- and I've never seen such a boat left there. Right. What sort of boat?…….It was like a small inflatable Zodiac. Mm hm. Did it have a motor, do you recall?…….I'm pretty sure it had a black outboard. All right. …….Mm. Now the area we're talking about - if you could be shown please, P40, photographs 1 and 2 - they're the ones in the back of the big folder, ladies and gentlemen -…….Yeah. Do they show the area where you saw the inflatable -…….Yes, they are.


And was it tied to anything that we can see there?…….The tide when I got - Was it - was it tied to - tied -…….Oh was it tied to them - yes, it was. Okay. Now what about the tide?…….Well in these photographs they look like high tide to me. Yes. ……. When I got there the tide was going out, it was almost three quarters of the way out. Mm hm. …….And the water was below the last pole. Right. And it was tied to one of the poles?…….Yeah, it was tied to somewhere - on - I can't be sure, I remember saying the seventh pole in my statement - Yes.…….- the ninth pole is the high tide mark. Right. …….So you know it was tied around the high tide mark. Yeah. Okay. Well why we're on the photographs, can Mr Liaubon please be shown photograph 70, I think it was, yeah 70 and 71 of P03 - the first set. Does that - does that look like the one - in a different position than you describe?…….That's interesting - I don't remember it saying Quicksilver. Mhm. Is that the shape of it?……That's the shape of the boat, yes. Thank you. Did you go out in your canoe?……I did. Did you come back?……I did come back. What did you see?……What I saw was the Zodiac in the same position as when I'd arrived and it was around - look, the wind started picking up that day and my sailing was cut short because of that and I wasn't out there very long, so I'm - you know, an hour, hour and a half, something like that. Mhm……So, yep, the boat was still in the same position.


Right, and did you seek to do something or try to do something concerning your canoe?……Yep, I loaded my - I reversed the van back down onto the beach, you know, 'cause the canoe slides right inside it, and put the canoe in it. Yes……And whilst I was fiddling around with something - oh that's right, I remember I - I needed a rope because I pull the tailgate down and I tie it. Right……And that rope had fallen out previously when I'd beached it once before. Yes…….So I'd lost that rope and I thought, "Oh God, I need that rope to tie the tailgate down", so I walked past the Zodiac along Short Beach looking for the rope in the water where before I'd upended my canoe. Yes…….Couldn't find the rope, so as I was walking back - yep, the boat was still there. Now this is a bit unclear, but whilst I was at the back of my van I remember seeing a woman walk across the grass diagonally - Yes…….- from round about the Queen Street angle and she came up to the Zodiac and she was trying to lift it. Yes. Why would she try to lift it?……Well the Zodiac - the outboard motor, the leg was in the operating position. Uhuh…….And as such the leg protrudes below the level of the hull and she was trying to swivel it or lift it but the leg was caught in the sand and so she looked to me like she was struggling to lift it. I don't know why, but I didn't offer to help. No, well that's terrible but - ……Yeah, a bit incredible but I - yeah, I - yeah, I just thought it was a bit - odd behaviour that - No, don't tell us what you though…..Anyway, so, yeah, so I ignored - I ignored what I was observing and anyway she came to me and she said, "Can you help me?" I said, "Yes", so I walked over, it was only a matter of metres, she lifted the - I remember it was the rear left, I lifted the leg and tilted the outboard and put the pin in so that it stayed at that upright position and then I returned to my van, put the canoe in, drove away. Okay. Slowly, can you describe her at all?……From memory she had sort of a sunhat on which was a light colour, quite wide brimmed, and she also large sunglasses on. She had shoulder length hair which was protruding down below the level of the hat, a chestnut colour.


And her age?……Oh, very difficult to say because of the hat and the glasses but, you know, she wasn't young so I'd estimate forty, fifties. Okay. Now I think you said you got your canoe loaded up and did you go back up - back to Battery Point?……I did, yeah. And on the way there did you notice anything?……Yes, I went home by way of King Street, Quayle Street and Napoleon Street and as you come around and you turn left up into Napoleon Street briefly you have a view across the grass towards the rowing sheds and it was at that point - and it would have been, you know, a couple of seconds, I saw - because I was interested, you know, what's become of the woman I've helped, is she on the water now, and she was. I saw, you know, the boat was floating and she was sitting in it but, you know, in that brief view it looked like she was stationary but the wind was an onshore wind so, you know, she was slowly making her way out. Okay. So she was heading out away from the shore?……She was. Thank you. When you got home, which would only be a few minutes later- ……Yeah. - was there something that would help you tell the time?…….Yeah. What was that?…….I've got a microwave oven, so as soon as I open the door I have view through to the kitchen - Yeah.…….- and the microwave oven, the clock on it is sort of LED green colour and it's pretty obvious, and I always look at the time. Yeah.…….So when I got home I noticed it was two thirty. So how long would it have been since you left the beach, I take it you mucked around the canoe and got it out again or something, did you, or -…….Yeah, well it only takes five minutes to drive home. Yeah.…….And then it would probably take fifteen to twenty minutes to unload the canoe, wash it, wash all my wetsuit and booties and what not, have a shower and then - because the bathroom is outside, it's an outside bathroom, yeah.' So that makes it, what, roughly the time you left the beach?…….Approximately, I would have left Short Beach at around two o'clock.


Okay. Thank you, Mr Liaubon.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: When you last saw this woman in the rubber boat she was heading along the edge of the reclaimed area where Sandy Bay Yacht Club is, is that right?…….Yes. How far out from the edge of the reclaimed area would she have been?…….Difficult to say at that angle, but probably, two to three metres. Two to three metres, and you're not able to say whether she was going out to the yachts or going along to the end and turning right to go to the yacht club, are you?…….No. You've no idea?…….No. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Thank you, your Honour.

MR ELLIS SC: Nothing out of that, thank you, your Honour, I seek relief.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, you're free to go, Mr Liaubon.


MR ELLIS SC: I'm embarrassed to say we're out of witnesses, your Honour, we thought eleven was optimistic for the day but it turned out not.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well there's nothing else for it, we'll have to adjourn until ten o'clock on Monday. The jury can make their affirmation and the Court will then adjourn.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you.


<THE COURT ADJOURNED Table of Contents


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 376

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 380


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 387

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 390

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: .................................................. 398


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 401

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 408


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 415

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 420

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 425


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 426

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 428

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 431


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 434

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 437

<REXN - MR SHAPIRO: .................................................. 440

<FUR - EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ........................................... 441

<FUR XXN - MR GUNSON SC: .......................................... 442


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 443

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 446


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 447

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 454


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 467

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 472

<MARK BARRY WILBY CALLED AND SWORN .................. 478

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ..................................................... 478

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 481

<JAMES MILLAR CALLED AND AFFIRMED ..................... 486

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 486

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 488

<AU MING HONG CALLED AND SWORN.......................... 490

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 490

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 491

<TODD PLUNKETT CALLED AND SWORN ........................ 493

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 493

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 495


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 497

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 499 Exhibit List

EXHIBIT #P54 - DIAGRAM MARKED BY JOHN NORMAN HUGHES.................................................................... 377

EXHIBIT #P55 - PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN CHRISTOPHER DOBBYN ................................................................... 402

EXHIBIT #P56 - CD ELECTRONIC PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY CHRISTOPHER DOBBYN ............................................... 402





MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Call John Norman Hughes, your Honour - page 150, fist - in the second volume. While he's being called, Mrs Mainsbridge reminds me I haven't yet sort the usual order as to witnesses expenses and so forth.

HIS HONOUR: I make the usual order under the 1996 Act.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat.

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Are you John Norman Hughes?…….Yes. Do you live at Mount Stuart?…….Yes. And are you a full time carer for your mother?…….Yes.

And your mother has suffered a stroke, is that right?…….Yes. When we say 'full time' how full time is - is this?…….I have some time off during the week, my brother looks after my mother to give me a break. Okay. And usually when is that?…….Monday afternoon and sometimes Monday night overnight, sometimes. Yeah. On Monday the 26th of January 2009 was Australia Day, was it also one of the days that you had off from your tasks?…….Yes.


And do you recall going somewhere late - later that evening of the th of January 2009?…….I played golf in the afternoon, probably until fairly late - Yeah.…….- and then I may have gone to the movies or to the Casino, but I can't remember exactly which. Right. And after either of those - those two things, do you recall going somewhere else?…….No, other than to - I drove down to the Marieville Esplanade and to the rowing sheds. Okay. Why did you go to the rowing sheds?……To relax and to look out over the water. Is that a place you go to sometimes?……Occasionally, to relax. Yep. Do you know what - or do you recall what time you went down there?……It was between half past eleven and twelve o'clock. How do you judge that time?……Because I knew it was the time because I had a clock in the car. Okay. Did you have something with you, did you - something to drink?……Mm, I had a coffee, a Farmers Union iced coffee. So you went down there in a car?……Yes. That's right. Did you park the car somewhere?……Parked the car at the end of the rowing sheds. End of the rowing sheds. Now we've got a map - the jury have got a map in front of them and if I give you Mr Shapiro's pen could make perhaps an 'X' on this copy of the map where you were parked. Thank you……..It's only a small cross.

HIS HONOUR: Can I see it, please. Yes, it's just near the letter 'Y' of Sandy Bay Rowing Club as if it were in a position of a full stop after the 'Y'.

MR ELLIS SC: Tender that, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: Could it be held up to the jury perhaps.


MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): Thanks, Mr Hughes. Now that's where you parked, did you stay in the car, do you recall?……I may have got out of the car at some stage to stretch my legs. Yep. Did you notice something when you were down there?……I noticed a dinghy. And where was the dinghy?……About fifty metres off-shore. And was it going in any particular direction?……North east towards the eastern shore. Did there appear to be anyone in the dinghy?……There was one person in the dinghy. Can you say anything about that person, how it appeared to you?……The person had the outline of a female, but I can't be definite. Did you hear anything that was associated with seeing the dinghy?……There was an outboard on the back. And did you hear the sound of the outboard?……It was reasonably quiet. Right…….The boat was only going at a slow speed. Where did the boat appear to have come from or what mode had it come from when you first saw it?……The boat came from towards the Royal Yacht Club.

Okay, came from the direction of the yacht club?……That's correct, but I couldn't see it because the rowing sheds were in the way until it got out in front of me. Yeah…….And it was then that I noticed it, but that's the direction it came from. All right. When you saw some newspaper reports in the next day or two did you do something?……I rang the police.


Did you give them your name at that stage?……No, I remained anonymous. Do you recall what day you did that?……It was a couple of days later, I think, one or two days later, I can't exactly remember. And where you rang from?……The University library. Did you see anyone else down there that night?……No. Anyone standing around fires?……No, I can't remember though. No. Thank you, Mr Hughes. Oh, sorry. Oh I see. You described seeing a dinghy, can you describe what sort of dinghy it was?……It was rubber inflatable. Thank you.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: With respect to the dinghy, are you able to say what colour it was?…….No.

No idea whether it was a black one, a white one or a green one?…….No. No. And you're not able to give an estimate of its length, are you?…….It was about three to four to five metres. So it was between three to four to five metres?…….Yes. It may have been shorter than three or longer than five?…….No.

But that's just a guess again, isn't it?…….It's an estimate. It's a guess, I suggest.

MR ELLIS SC: It's been already answered, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well no, he can put the question twice, if he wants to.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): It's a guess, isn't it?…….It's an estimate. And did you pay much attention to the dinghy?…….I saw a dinghy. I asked you did you pay much attention to it?…….Not a great deal. No. And you were there, you saw it, and it was not something particularly unusual as far as you were concerned at that time?.......No. And the only reason you remembered it was because of what you read in the paper, a day or two later?…….Yes. Thank you. When you say it was heading in a northeast direction, had it actually passed the end of the reclaimed land where the rowing sheds are built, when you first saw it?…….No. All right. You've shown us in the photograph where your vehicle was parked; was the boat - the dinghy directly out in front of you when you first saw it or was it to your right or to your left?…….Slightly to my right.


And it was at least fifty metres out?…….Yes. And perhaps it could have been further than that?…….Not to a great extent. Pardon?…….Not to a great extent, no. Right. Now did you see it pass between any yachts that were moored out there or motorboats that were moored out there?…….To my recollection it may have passed between a few yachts. Right. If you'd look please at the photograph that's been tendered already and you've marked the end of the area where your car was parked - do you have that photograph in front of you?…….Yes. Would you look at it carefully and tell me please if you can identify roughly the point where the dinghy was when you saw it - if you can't, please tell me?…….It was approximately in that area - All right. …….- in those two yachts out in front. All right. Perhaps you might mark that please?…….How do I mark it, with a cross or a circle? I think perhaps a little circle will be sufficient. Thank you. Could I have a look at that please? Thank you. And pass that to his Honour and the jury, and I think Mr Ellis probably wants to look at it was well.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, show Mr Ellis and the jury.

MR GUNSON SC: Did this yacht - sorry, did this dinghy travel into the group of yachts or motorboats that are moored off Marieville Esplanade and disappear from view?……Yes. You probably only watched it for a few seconds, is that a fair comment?……It wouldn't have been any more than a minute. Yes, probably less than that?……I can't remember. Right. And did you notice where the person you saw in this dinghy was seated?……They were seated. Whereabouts?……Towards the back.


Yes, on the side of the dinghy or seated in the dinghy?……In the dinghy. So they weren't on the left hand side or on the right hand side, but rather sitting down on what you presume was either a seat or the floor?……Yes. All right. Are you able to describe the clothing worn by this person?……No. It was a very dark night, wasn't it?……It was dark. Yes. There was no moon shining over the waters of Marieville Esplanade?……Not that I can remember, - No…….- only the lights of Sandy Bay. Yes. They didn't help you though, did they?……To a degree. But at the end of the day you can't describe what that person was wearing even, can you?……No. And you can't say whether the person was or was not, for instance, wearing a cap?……No. Or a beanie or something like that?……No. And you can't say whether they were wearing a waterproof jacket, for instance?……No. And you just formed the impression that it was a woman?……It had the outline of a female. But you can't be sure about that one hundred percent, can you?……I can't be definite. No. So at the end of the day what it comes down to is you thought it was a woman but you can't be sure and you can't tell us what the person was wearing, you don't know the colour of the dinghy?……That's correct. What about the colour of the outboard?……I can't remember. Was the outboard a noisy one or a quiet one?……It was reasonably quiet.


Right. Now you were asked some questions by Mr Ellis a moment ago about whether any other persons or vehicles were in the area, is that correct, remember those questions?

MR ELLIS SC: I don't think I asked about vehicles in the area, your Honour.

MR GUNSON SC: All right, I'll take you there. (Resuming): Were there any other cars parked in the area of the rowing sheds that you can remember now?……No. You can't remember that or you don't know?……No, there weren't any other cars parked there. If I was to suggest to you there were other vehicles parked in the area of the rowing sheds would you deny that?……I can't remember any vehicles parked there. But you're not prepared to say emphatically that there weren't others there?……Not one hundred percent. Thank you. Am I right in understanding this, you got there at about :30 and you believe you left about midnight, is that right?……That's correct. But within this half hour gap you can't place the time when you saw that dinghy go out?……No, I can't remember. So it could be as early as shortly after 11:30 or as late as just before you left?……Yes. Thank you. Now there were other cars parked around the Marieville Esplanade area weren't there?……That I can remember there were, yes. Yes. You go down there quite reasonably - reasonably often to relax don't you?……Occasionally. And it's not unusual to find cars either parked around the boatsheds or on Marieville Esplanade?……Usually on Marieville Esplanade. And there's a car parking area there isn't there?……Yes. Thank you. Now did you get out of your car at all that night?……I think I did.


Well you have on a previous occasion said - …..But I can't absolutely remember. All right. And when you saw this dinghy were you inside your vehicle or outside your vehicle?……I think I was outside but I can't be absolutely sure. And were you standing near your car when you saw the dinghy?……I would have being standing next to it. Well you say you would have I'm really trying to ask you to recall what you actually remember. When you saw - take yourself back, when you saw the dinghy were you standing in front of the car, to the side of the car or had you moved away from it?……I would have being standing next to the car because I would have got out of the car just to stretch my legs. And how long would you have been out of the car for?…….Probably only a few minutes. Could you have been there as little as twenty minutes; that is at Marieville Esplanade?…….I wasn't there for anymore than half an hour. Could you have been there as little as twenty minutes?…….It's possible. Yes, and in fact on a previous occasion you've said, "I wouldn't have been anymore than twenty minutes, half an hour"?…….That's correct. So if you were there for twenty minutes, that slightly puts out your estimates of eleven thirty and midnight, doesn't it?…….I was there between half past eleven and twelve o'clock. But within that half hour -…….With that time - within that timeframe? Within that timeframe but you may -…….From twenty - - have within that timeframe been as there - been there as short as twenty minutes?…….Yes. Thank you. Can you help me by telling me how you fixed the timeframe?…….Because I look at the clock's car - the car's clock.


Yes. But do you remember when you talked to the police about seeing what you - or telling them what you saw, being able to think back and say 'Well I got there at eleven thirty because I remember looking at the clock in my car'?…….Mm, I'm always looking at the clock in my car. You've previously said of the description, "I thought the person had an outline of a female. I had the feeling that this person was a female. I can't be definite, it was dark"?…….Yes. Thank you. And that's still your position, isn't it?…….Yes. Thank you. The dinghy was heading a fairly slow speed?…….Yes. Do you recall how long you'd been there before the dinghy arrived on the scene?…….No, I can't remember. Thank you. It is possible that whilst you were there that other persons were in the area of the sheds?……No, I can't remember anybody else. Well do you say that definitely nobody else was around those sheds or are you saying, "Now I can't remember any"?........No, I'm almost one hundred percent definite. Almost?……Yes. But there is room for doubt, isn't there?……Very, very little. People could have been behind you and you wouldn't necessarily have noticed them?……Well that's possible, but unlikely. Thank you. The dinghy was - more correctly the outboard of the dinghy was obviously making sufficient noise to draw your attention to it?……I heard it, I heard an outboard. Did you hear the outboard before you sighted the dinghy?……I can't remember. At fifty metres away from it you could clearly hear the engine as it - as the dinghy went along?……Yes. And it was reasonably loud to where you were?……It wasn't a roaring noise but I could hear the outboard. Thank you. I've no further questions of Mr Hughes.





MR ELLIS SC: Call Barbara Zochling, your Honour. Page 100 in volume 1, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Ms Zochling, you're Barbara Helen Zochling?……Yes. You're retired and live in Sandy Bay is that right?……Yes. In 2002 and again in 2004 did you have certain treatment for your shoulder?……Yes. Did that involve radiation treatment?……Yes. And was there a certain person who delivered that treatment on those occasions?……Yes. Who was that?……Dr Chappell. You knew him as Dr Chappell could he have been Mr Chappell?……I beg your pardon? You knew him as Dr - you thought of him as Dr Chappell?……I - when I had the accident and went to the - after awhile was - I - they suggest I have radiation and so they took me down to this radiation and I was a bit worried about the treatment because, you know, radiation can do all sorts of things, and then this gentleman came into the room and had a talk with me and I later knew him as Dr Rob Chappell. Robert, yeah, you knew him as Robert Chappell?……Robert Chappell, yeah, that's right.

Okay. And was the treatment given to you in the Holman Clinic?……I beg your pardon? Was the treatment given to you - it's part of the Royal Hobart Hospital - ……At the Royal Hobart Hospital, yes. And in the Holman Clinic was it, do you recall?……I think - I can't remember which - because we went through - but I thought it was more or less out on - it was in the radiation part anyway.


That's okay. On the 26th January last year, on Australia Day, were you near - or were you at Marieville Esplanade?……Yes, I was. At about what time of day?……Well I can't say exactly but it was really quite early in the morning - Yes.…….Because I had decided to get up really - I was up very early that morning because it was a beaut - the start of a beautiful day - Yeah.…….- and so I decided to walk up to Sandy Bay and get some fresh bread, and so I walked up to Sandy Bay, and I went to Woolworths first and then down to the Sandy - over to the Sandy Bay Bakery, and I then turned into, I think I went to McDonalds, I can't remember, I had an ice-cream or something, and then I went down - oh what's the name of the street that goes down where the doctor's surgery is - Margaret Street, I think it is, and I got onto the - to the - it was a beautiful day and I sat on the seat and it was the middle seat, there's a seat right at the end - Mm hm. …….- one in the middle and one on the end of the left hand side of Marie - which I now know to be Short Beach. Right. It's a little beach where dogs can go, is that right?…….I beg your pardon? Where you can take dogs, is that the beach?…….That's a doggy beach, yes, yeah. Okay. So you're sitting there, and then did you go somewhere - towards somewhere else?…….I sat there for quite awhile. Yeah.…….And then I decided, 'well I'm going home to make some sandwiches and go to the beach'. Okay. And which way did you go, back towards Sandy Bay?…….No, I - I went across towards the yacht club. Right. …….Because there's a path that leads from the doggy beach right around past the yacht club and then out onto the - almost to Sandy Bay Road there. I see. And there did you see someone you recognised?…….Yes, I did. Who was that?…….Doctor Rob Chappell.


Ah huh. What was he doing?…….He was walking towards the doggy beach, they were coming towards me. Yeah. When you say 'they' he was in company with someone?…….Yes, he was with a lady - a lady. And did you hear them saying anything?…….They didn't say anything. No.…….Sorry - the question? No I'm sorry, did you hear them - them speaking, were they speaking to each other, perhaps?…….Dr Chappell was in the front. Yeah.…….And the lady was a few - a little bit behind him and she was talking in a raised voice, but I was too far - I was about twenty - fifteen, twenty metres away and - but the reason I looked because I could hear the loud voice. Mm hm. …….And then I thought 'gee I know that man, and it was Dr Chappell. Right. Right, nothing further, thank you, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Let me just follow this through with you so I can make sure in my own mind I have your sequence of events correct. You went up to the Sandy Bay Bakery?……Yes. Which is in Sandy Bay Road just past the intersection with King Street?……Yes. Thank you……..I think it's King Street, I'm - yes it is, yes. Yes, and then you believe you walked down to McDonalds, which is further down Sandy Bay Road?……Yes. And you purchased something there, is that right?……Yes. And then you walked down past the doctor's surgery into Marieville Esplanade, is that right?……Yes, I think that's Margaret Street. Yes. So what time did you leave home that morning?……Quite early actually. That's not very helpful to me, tell me the time?……Oh goodness me, two years ago now, it was very early, round about seven - between seven thirty and eight o'clock. So where do you live?……I live opposite the casino. So in that big block of units opposite there?……Yes. All right. And you got down to Marieville Esplanade at what time?……Oh goodness. Within about a half an hour of me coming from McDonalds. Yes…….Or less than that, twenty minutes. I don't know what time you left McDonalds, so what time did you leave McDonalds?……About five minutes later because I'd bought an ice-cream there and had an ice-cream. So you walked from the block of units opposite the casino, up to the bakery near King Street?……Yes. How long did that take you?……Oh about half an hour.


And how long were you at the bakery?……Oh not long, I purchased the bread and left. Then back down to McDonalds?……Yes. From McDonalds down to Marieville Esplanade. So what's your best estimate of the time it took you to get from the bakery down to Marieville Esplanade?……Well not long, it's only about ten minutes. Yes, and how long did you then spend sitting at the doggy beach, as you called it before you left there?…….Oh, around about a half an hour maybe forty five minutes. Right. Have you ever said that you sat on that seat for about twenty minutes?…….Have I ever said it? Yes. …….I don't know I may have done it's a long time ago. Did you tell the police "I sat on a seat on the grassed area in front of the beach looking out at the beach. I sat on the seat for about twenty minutes"?…….Yes, it's quite possible. Did you tell the police that?…….Yes, I did. Thank you. …….It's in my state - So now you're tell us it's as long as forty five minutes, is that?…….Oh - Ms Zochling, what's correct, what you told the police -…….Because it's nearly two - - or what you tell us now?…….- years ago, sir, and I - you know it's a bit difficult to remember. All I know is I saw what I saw. I'm asking you what's correct; were you there for twenty minutes or forty five minutes?…….Well it could have been a bit longer. Than what?…….Pardon? Longer than twenty minutes?…….It have been a bit longer than twenty minutes. As long as forty five, as you've just -…….Yes. - told us?…….It could have been, because it -


Right. …….- was a nice day and there was a lot of people around and dogs on the beach and I like to watch them. Yeah. Well you've said you walked towards the yacht club - …….Yes. - and did you go past the child's play area that's in that area?…….Yes, I did. Mm. And -…….At that time it wasn't fenced off either. I didn't ask you about that. I asked you did you go past it?…….Mm. Now you say you saw a person you recognised - you called as Dr Chappell, but Mr Chappell, and there was a woman with him?…….Yes. And she was behind him -…….Yes. - by what distance?…….Oh not very far. Well that doesn't help me, how far?…….I don't I just didn't - I - I can't know - she was walking behind him. Yes. And could the witness be shown P01 please?…….I beg your pardon. I wasn't speaking with you -…….Oh sorry. - I was speaking to the attendant. Now just take a moment and familiarise yourself with that aerial photograph; do you see Marieville Esplanade marked there?……Yes. Do you see the Sandy Bay Rowing Club marked there?……Yes. Do you see the Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania marked?……Yes. And you can see Margaret Street and the junction of Marieville Esplanade, can't you?……Yes. All right. Now using that are you able to tell me where you first saw Mr Chappell that morning?……This is Margaret here -


Take your time…….It must've been I think probably round about a metre or so past the Sandy Bay Rowing Club. Right, and -……..But I was on the other side. That's all right, we'll just take it step by step. Mr Ellis, do you have a spare copy? No, don't worry about it. We need to get that - a mark on that map, does that cause any problems, your Honour. It can be done, I suspect, to that marked one, I think.

MR SHAPIRO: I can get a spare copy, your Honour.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): In any event I don't propose - can you - can the witness be given a colour marker.

MR ELLIS SC: I'm not happy about marking the exhibit, we're getting some copies.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, if it's all right -

MR ELLIS SC: If it's something of vital importance, but -

HIS HONOUR: If it's all right with you, Mr Gunson, it might be a good idea to keep P1 clean -


HIS HONOUR: - and Mr Shapiro apparently is on his way, here he comes, with a copy of it, or if you prefer there's the map that the previous witness put some markings on.

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, that's -


MR GUNSON SC: Yes, I think we'll use that. Yes, I think your Honour's detected a certain jousting going on.


MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Now what you're being shown now, Mrs Zochling, is a smaller version of what's already an exhibit, could you just marked where first of all you were when you say you first saw Mr Chappell, you have to put a Z there. Yes, just put a Z - ……About there, the seats are there.


All right, can I have a look at that please? Am I right in thinking that this mark here is what you intended?……Yeah. All right, it's just a blue mark. And if you'd also put please where you say Mr Chappell was, and put a C there please…..It's approximate. Thank you. Could that be shown to me please? Now you haven't put a C there but I'm - what you've done is you've put two ink marks on the paper and I want you please if you would to put a Z where you were and a C, that is the letter C, where Mr Chappell was, please do as you're asked…….A Z for me? Yes. Now could I have another look please? All right, so you've shown your position on this map towards the end of Short Beach?…….Yes. And Mr Chappell over near the car park of the Royal Yacht Club, is that right?…….Oh I don't know where the - the car park's on there. All right. You put the "C" there -…….Yeah. - I want you to be quite sure please -…….Have we got car park marked? Well if you have a look you can see it's a car park?…….This is Sandy Bay Rowing Club - You put your "C" for Chappell just to the right as we look of some sheds, but between the Sandy Bay Rowing Club and the Sandy Bay - sorry - sorry, the Royal Yacht Club?…….The Royal Yacht Club. Yeah.…….Yeah, but the Royal Yacht Club is over here. The Royal Yacht Club is marked -…….Yes, I know. - it's got there - right.…….It's here. Come right, you'll see some sheds?…….Pardon? You can see some sheds when you look at that photograph?…….The sheds - the rowing sheds are here. You can see them?…….Yeah.


Look, are you confident where you put the "C" that that's where Mr Chappell was?…….No, he was coming from the Royal Yacht Club around - Right. …….- yeah. Well do you see the words "Royal Yacht Club"?…….Yeah. They are directly above the Royal Yacht Club surprisingly. Now do you see the walk in - well the jetty in front of the Royal Yacht Club, you're familiar with that, aren't you?…….Yes. Right. Was he anywhere near there?…….No, I just - I'd got up there and it was about here, where I've got my "Z" before I actually crossed over the road there, because there's a path that goes from - Yes.…….- the Royal Yacht Club right around there, and I was there, and as I was about to cross the road I heard - and I saw - I heard first some loud talking - No just, please, concentrate on the question.…….Yeah. Are you confident that where you put "C" -…….Yes, yes. - is where Mr Chappell was?…….Yes. Thank you. And the woman was some distance behind him, is that right, by a few metres?……Yeah. You can't - because we were almost - I'm afraid I can't say whether it was fifteen metres, ten minutes or ten - or five feet, but she was walking behind him. And do you say on your oath that you could recognise him from that distance?……Yes, I do. Did he pass you?……Pardon? Did he go past you or you go past him?……No. Right. First of all could you show that to his Honour, then Mr Ellis and then the jury, please.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you.


MR GUNSON SC: That can be returned to the exhibits please. Thank you. And perhaps we can take the other map as well. Mrs Zochling, you have in fact advised the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ellis, recently that you'd seen a news report that showed a photograph of Mrs Neill-Fraser haven't you?……Yes. And you said with respect to that, to Mr Ellis, that the woman that you saw in that news report is definitely not the same woman you saw walking behind Bob Chappell on the morning of Australia Day last year?……That's correct. And that is your belief isn't it?……Yes, at the time it was. And when you said that to Mr Ellis it was your belief?……Yes, yes. Yes. And you have also said to Mr Ellis it's quite clear to you that the woman that you saw was more than likely going somewhere else or to another yacht and there were many people around at the time preparing their yachts for a day of sailing as it was becoming a very hot Australia Day, that's what you told Mr Ellis wasn't it?……Excuse me would you repeat that. Yes. You said to Mr Ellis - It's quite clear to me that the woman I was saw was more than likely going somewhere else or to another yacht. That's what you said didn't you?……Gosh, I can't remember that but - Do you deny that?……Pardon? Do you deny that…..I'm not sure what - because I - can I say what I saw? No, you'll answer the questions…..I said the woman I saw was a -

HIS HONOUR: No, no, wait for the next question please.

WITNESS: Oh, sorry.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): I want you to look at this document, I want you to read it to yourself, I do not want you to say anything about it whatsoever. When you have read the first page please tell


me. Now be careful about this, I don't want you to say a single word about it, do you understand that?……Yes. Can you pass that back to me please? I want to ask you again, did you recently say to Mr Ellis, "It is now quite clear to me that the woman I saw was more than likely going somewhere else or to another yacht"?…….Yes. Did you also say to Mr Ellis, "There were many people around at the time preparing their yachts for a day of sailing and it was coming to be a very hot Australia Day"?…….Yes. Thank you. Now you told the police, did you can't recall what the woman was wearing -…….Yes. That's correct, thank you, and that you didn't take much notice of the woman?……That's correct. That's correct?……That's correct. In what direction was Dr - sorry, Mr Chappell walking when you saw him?……When I saw who? Pardon?……When I saw who? Mr Chappell, when you first saw him what direction was he walking?……Towards the small - coming from the yacht club towards the small beach. Thank you. And you were walking towards the yacht club?……I was about to, yes. Yes, I've no further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Mr Gunson's - my learned friend, Mr Gunson's said that you've said various things to me, when did you say those various things, Mrs Zochling?……I beg your pardon? When did you say to me or write to me the various things that Mr Gunson has brought to your attention?……When did I write it? Yes…….Those things there? Yes…….Last Sunday night. That was because you didn't want to come to court?……Pardon? And was that because you didn't want to come to court?……No, no, not at all, on the contrary. I spoke to my lawyer first, I saw him by accident on the Friday, and I thought perhaps I - I'd never given a thought to come and talk to you about it, to be quite honest, I just - it said that if you didn't want my form that I got, or the - to come to the court, it said that if I didn't want to come I could either write a letter or speak to you myself, but I thought it was a bit close and that you may not have got - I thought you may have answered my letter. I brought the letter in myself personally on the Monday morning - Mhm……..- and the trial was to start on the Tuesday, so I thought rather than - you may have been occupied and reading the facts there could have - Yes…….And I expected to get a phone call or something from you to say yes or no. Well didn't you write, 'Therefore I wish to be excused from attending court'?........I beg your pardon? Did you write, 'Therefore I wish to be excused from attending court'?.......Yes, I did. Right. You've said that it's more likely that the woman that you saw that you believe was speaking in a raised voice to Mr Chappell was going to another yacht, why is that more likely?……Well because the woman I saw originally with Mr - Mr Chappell was - I thought was a blonde -a blondie ash hair, shoulder length hair, and when I - Right. …….Yeah.


Sorry, I don't wish to -…….And when I saw the television - Yes.…….- sorry, when I came to the Court here and saw that the - the lady in the - in the box there had black hair - Yeah.…….- that's the reason I thought that I had the wrong person. I see. I think we might have a picture of the lady you might have seen - sorry, your Honour, just bear with me -

HIS HONOUR: P50 - you might be thinking about P50, tab 5 in the blue folder?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, thank you. (Resuming): Well maybe P50 number 1. Can you see the woman that you saw there?…….No the woman that - the woman - it - the one in the front here - Mm, I'm just asking you if you see her there?…….It doesn't seem to be - oh sorry, would you ask me the question again? Yes, without - without looking at the accused, do you see the woman there that you saw?…….Yeah, but that's - the woman - In photograph 1.…….- that I saw had blond hair. Blond hair?…….Yeah, blond ashen hair. Absolutely blond?…….Pardon? Absolutely blond?…….No, no, no, no, ashen blond, sort of - I don't know - it just - I didn't really take much notice, but it certainly wasn't that colour. Right. It was black?…….Well I - when I - well I don't know, black, whatever, I saw it on TV. Yeah, what you saw on TV. All right, Ms Zochling, nothing further, thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, Ms Zochling, you're free to go.





<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Is your full name Christopher Guy Dobbyn?....Yes. And are you a marine surveyor?......Yes. And who do you work for?....Oh, I'm self-employed. And what qualifications do you have to allow you to be a marine surveyor?....I've got a diploma in Marine Surveying. And how long have you been a marine surveyor?....Three years now. And prior to that, did you have some experience with yachts and boats?...Yeah, I've been a boat builder since I was 18, which is approximately 20 years. Thank you. Now on 27th January 2009 you contacted and advised that the Four Winds had been sinking on its mooring?.....That's correct. And the next day, did you see that vessel, on 28th?...Yes, I did. Where was that?....It was at Constitution Dock, tied up. Constitution Dock - thank you. And what did you do when you saw it on that day?....…Oh I moved the boat to the CleanLIFT Marine up at Derwent Park to have the boat slipped. Okay. And it had to be towed up there did it?……That's correct. And you steered the - steered the yacht?……That's correct. We tied the tender to the side of it. It needed some - because that's a heavier vessel it needed to be steered from that vessel. Okay, thank you. And so once you had the vessel at CleanLIFT what did you do then?……I did an assessment as to why the vessel had sunk. Okay. And did you take a series of photographs?……That's correct. Thank you. If the witness can be shown these photos. Can you just have a look at those photos and confirm if they're the photos you took?……Yes, they are.


Thank you. I tender those and I also tender the CD with them. ASSOCIATE: P55 and P56.



MR SHAPIRO: Yes, and I have some copies for the jury - thank you. These are on the very back of the smaller folder. Okay, Mr Dobbyn, if you can just explain what that first photo is of?…….It's a photo of the vessel, just a general overview shot. It's obviously at - where is that photo taken?…….That photo is taken at Constitution Dock. If you can just flick to the next photograph please?…….That's another photo of it at Constitution Dock?…….Yes of the transom. Thank you. And the next one - where was that photo taken?…….To my knowledge that in the - just inside the galley. Thank you. And the next photo?…….That will be the electrical switchboard, either - either in the wheel - that's in the wheelhouse, I would imagine. Thank you. And the next one?…….That is the saloon area in the - in the vessel. And the next photograph?…….That's the aft - aft cabin in the vessel. Thank you……That will be - it's in the front - front of the vessel I would presume because I haven't got any reference to - there's quite a lot of hatches in the vessel and I don't know where exactly it is, it's just showing a seacock into, I would presume, the freshwater tank or the fuel tank. Okay…….Actually I think that's the grey water tank because the pump that's here is - looks like a macerator. Okay, I understand that, thank you. And the next photo?……That's showing scraping on the underside of the hatch in the front of the boat.


So that's the forward hatch?……That's the forward hatch, yes, that's correct. Perhaps you can use the mouse there to point out where you say there's this scraping?……I took this photo 'cause it's not very often that you get marks like this, obviously been something scrape up the - the front of this hatch here and it's taken all the varnish off that corner in that area - Thank you……...- which showed bare timber. And the next one?……That's the same - same mark that's just a bit of a closer up view, you can see where the varnish has been taken off here and it's exposed with the bare timber. Thank you. If we go to the next photograph?……It's one of the seacocks into the boat and because I've got no references to where it is in the boat I couldn't exactly say which part it is.

HIS HONOUR: That's the photo that was tendered last week as exhibit P47.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour, thank you. (Resuming): And if you can go to the next, thank you…….It's just a photo of one of the bilges of the boat showing the tag for one of the bilge pumps - oh for one of the seacocks. Thank you. And the next one?……That's up in the very - that would be the hatch in the very bow of the boat showing the bilge pump that's - that's just here, it's a Royal 7000. Thank you……..That's the sea water pump - oh the hose coming from the seacock in the cupboard to the toilet. The white here is the actual toilet.

Oh yes, I see, thank you……That's showing the base of the toilet and the hose going off to the grey water tank in here. Thank you…….That's the grey water tank, I believe, with a - yeah, that's the waste pump in here which pumps the - just the waste from the toilet into the grey water tank here. Thank you, Mr Dobbyn, and the next photo?……Just another - another view of the tank and the valves into the grey water tank. The same, just through a different hatch in the floor at the other end


of it. These were on the - just on the bench inside the main saloon in the vessel. Yes, thank you……..I presume that's the fresh water tank or the fuel tank in the vessel just inside the - down the companionway. Those floorboards were - had been lifted up or had either floated up when the vessel was sank or had been removed prior to that - to the vessel sinking. Thank you……Just showing the valves for the fresh water tank. I think that's the last photograph. Now having inspected the vessel was there anything in particular that you noticed?……My job was there - as an insurance assessor was just to try to discover why it had sunk in the first place and the extent of the damage to give the insurance company some idea as to the coverage. Perhaps, your Honour, if I can ask for the screen to come down, thank you.


MR SHAPIRO: Well perhaps we can ask Mrs Oakes to close the laptop, thank you. (Resuming): Yes, sorry, so you were saying that - what you'd observed?……I was - I was there just to do an general overview of - to try and determine the cause of the vessel sinking in its mooring and to the extent of the damage of the vessel. And were there some particular aspects of the yacht that you took note of?……I noticed that the boat - the boat was in very good condition. There were a couple of floorboards missing just as you entered the saloon down the companionway stairs. Now they had either floated up during the sinking, because they weren't screwed down, or they had been removed prior to - most of the other hatches in the boat were in place. Did you notice anything in relation to the beds on the boat?……I noticed that all the beds were made in the boat besides the aft cabin and there was no - I didn't notice any doona or doona cover on that bed. But there were on the others?……All the other beds were made up, yes.


Did you - well did you find where the water had being entering the yacht?……I was informed by the police officer that the hose had been cut next to the toilet. And did you notice any other marks on the timber other than what you've -…….Yes there appeared to be - the scrape marks on the forward hatch with bare timber exposed and there was also a - it appeared to be a rope burn exposing bare timber on the aft, on the companionway entrance as well, which had been, in my opinion, not done very long ago. Perhaps if the witness can be shown P09?

HIS HONOUR: So this is the second set of photos in the large folder, ladies and gentlemen.

MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): And if I can take you to photograph and 11, can you see where you saw these marks in those photographs?…….On photograph 10 it would have been on the - on the trim that you can see on the entrance to the companionway on the - the very left hand piece of timber you can see running vertically. And is that shown in photo 11?…….Yes, it is, yes. Perhaps you can -…….It's indicated with an arrow on my photo - is that the same? Yes.…….Yes. Thank you. And so did - in terms of where this pipe was cut, did you look at where that was cut?…….Yes, I did. Okay. And what did the location of that cut pipe lead you to believe about the - the knowledge of the person who must have cut it?…….Well they would have known exactly what that pipe was for because it was - it was basically hidden with a very small gap on the right hand side of the toilet and and if you had of cut the left hand one that's the one that goes off to the grey water tank, so that was the one more accessible to - to be cut and if that had been cut it wouldn't have done - done anything. So in your opinion what level of knowledge would they have to have had of this particular -

MR GUNSON SC: I object to that, your Honour.


MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour, I don't press it, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.

MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): Now in terms of those marks on the wood that we were speaking about a second ago what did that appear to have been made by?……In my opinion it was made - made by a sheet and a rope. Okay. And - well how would that have been made by the rope?……By the rope being laid against the timber and being dragged against it. Thank you. And later that day you spoke with Ms Neill- Fraser?……That's correct. And you spoke with her about Mr Robert Chappell?……I made a brief comment to express my condolences as to how she was feeling at the time. What tense did Ms Neill-Fraser use when speaking about Mr Chappell?……I can't remember exactly what she said, but at the time I formed the opinion that she had thought that he was - he was deceased. Now did you observe anything on the steps in the yacht?……It was pointed out to me that there were stains on the steps and I did actually see them. And did Ms Neill-Fraser say anything to you about those stains?……No. Did you notice whether the boat was equipped with a depth sounder or something of that nature?…….I didn't pay particular attention to the electronics on the vessel but it would have - it would have been, yes.

MR GUNSON SC: Well I object to that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Yes, well - I don't press that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well ignore the witness' opinion; he didn't pay any attention to whether there was a depth sounder, ladies and gentlemen.


MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): Do you still have - do you still have the photographs in front of you?…….Yes. Thank you. Sorry, if I can - if he can be shown P03 please?

HIS HONOUR: That's the first set of photos in the big folder, ladies and gentlemen.

MR SHAPIRO: (Resuming): If I can take you to photograph number 24?…….Yes. Can you tell us what that grey box with the screen is, sitting in the top of the photograph there?…….That's a Furuno radar. Thank you. And what - what do you do with that?…….A radar is for picking up other vessels and land mass, so you can plot your course. Thank you. Perhaps if I take you to photograph 16, is anything in the - well you can see the wheelhouse there in that photograph are any of the instruments you see there for determining depth?……Without knowing what - that centre grey instrument would possibly be the depth sounder GPS, in the centre, but without knowing what it was - I can't actually just see a - most of those instruments are engine controls. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I'll be a little time with this witness does your Honour intend to take the morning break?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, in that case the jury can make their affirmation and the Court will adjourn for fifteen minutes.





HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:Mr Dobbyn, you are a surveyor, you have been a surveyor now for three years?……That's correct. Part of a surveyor's role is to see whether or not a boat that's either being built or is in existence has been - is ready to go to sea, it's got to be surveyed, particular standards set out by MAST, is that right?……If it's in commercial use, yes. And your task also as a surveyor from time to time is try and determine why a vessel may have sunk?……Correct. And you look for obvious signs of damage to seacocks failing and things like that, correct?……Correct. In general terms the Four Winds had been well built, it was in good condition?……It appeared in good condition. Right. How much time did you spend actually inspecting it for the purpose of providing advice to your insurer/client?……I would have been on the vessel for probably - oh, four to five hours. Four to five hours. And a number of the seacocks, obviously from the photographs, were well marked, had tags on them?……They're not all seacocks. No, but some of the seacocks were marked with the tags?……Yes, yes. And other internal taps, if I can use a lay word, were well marked as to what their purpose was?……Yes, correct. Correct. Now you observed damage, you said, to the pipe, the inlet pipe that comes in from the sea to the toilet?……That's correct. The toilet was pretty much a stock standard fitting?……Yes. And the sort of pipe system that brought the water in from the sea to the toilet was very much a stock standard arrangement wasn't it?……Yes. Nothing unusual about it at all?……No.


And all the piping was exactly where you would expect to find it on a yacht with a toilet like that?……Yes. Thank you. You met Ms Neill-Fraser some time after the 27th of January, didn't you?…….Yes. How long - how much later than the 27th of January was it that you met her?…….I met her on the 28th. If I was to suggest to you that it was later than that, would you agree with it or not?…….It might have been the 29th. All right. But she arrived with a Mr Terry Leen, didn't she?…….No, she didn't. Have you ever said "I met with Susan Neill-Fraser for the first time on the afternoon that Terry Leen arrived to inspect the vessel on her behalf"?…….She was not - he was not present with her at the time. Have you ever said before, "I met with Susan Neill-Fraser for the first time on the afternoon that Terry Leen arrived to inspect the vessel on her behalf"?…….Yes, I have. Yes. And that's what you've told the police when you provided them with a statement on the 9th of September 2009, isn't it?…….Yes. Right. Now if I was to suggest that that was sometime after the 27th, th or 29th of January 2009, would you agree with that?…….No. So what date did Mr Leen come onboard for the first time?…….I'm sure Mr Leen came onboard the day I did the assess - the day I did the assessment, or he might - because it was so long ago, I cannot actually recall whether I attended the vessel a few days after I'd moved to cleaning of - Have you brought your records with you?…….- or whether it was the day. Have you brought your file with you?…….No, I haven't. You haven't brought any of your documents with you that you would have recorded the dates that you were there on the boat?…….No, I haven't - oh actually I have got my - Well what have you got there?…….Well it's in my -


I asked you what you had not where it was?…….I have got my file. Thank you. …….That I had in the boat. Well why did you tell me you hadn't brought it with you?…….I wasn't sure whether I had. Well you knew it, when I asked you that question, you knew full well you had it around in the witness waiting room, didn't you?…….No, I didn't. Well your Honour, I will probably want to ask the witness some questions, can he be directed to recover that file please and bring it into the Court?

HIS HONOUR: Where is the file, Mr Dobbyn?

WITNESS: I'm pretty sure it's in my bag in the witness room, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And you'd like him to go and get it?

MR GUNSON SC: I would, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, would you go and get it please, Mr Dobbyn, and bring it back while we wait.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Have you brought into the courtroom your file relating to the work you performed for the insurer of Four Winds?……Yes. And when I asked you that question a moment ago about its existence and whereabouts you knew full well you had it out there, didn't you?……No, I didn't.

And it just suddenly came to mind that you had?……Well I wasn't sure what files I'd brought with me this morning, your Honour. Any other files in your bag?……Yes, I have.

Relating to this case or other matters?……Other matters.


All right. Now to answer this question which I'm about to ask you, you may need to have reference to your file, so would you take it up please and open it up. Just give me a yes or no answer, does your file record the date upon which Mr Leen inspected the boat on behalf of Mrs Neill-Fraser? Do you need to look at your file to answer that question?……Yes. Well look at your file, please. Does your file record the date upon which Mr Leen arrived to inspect the Four Winds?……No. And does your file reveal how many dates you worked on the Four Winds?……No. Do you know how long the Four Winds was at the CleanLIFT Marine premises?……Not exactly. Well roughly?……Probably two to three weeks. Thank you. And if I was to suggest it wasn't until mid February that Mr Leen inspected the vessel would you agree with that?……Yes. Thank you. And as you said, in the past when you spoke to the police you said you met with Mrs Neill-Fraser for the first time on the afternoon that Mr Leen arrived to inspect the vessel on her behalf?……Yes. That's correct, isn't it?……Yes. Thank you. Now Mr Leen told you he'd been employed by Ms Neill- Fraser to report on damage to the vessel?……Yes. And to reduce the risk of loss on board the vessel?……That's correct. And to reduce the risk of loss required attention to a number of matters, didn't it?……Yes. For instance the engine would have to be protected and dealt with in some way because it would've been flooded with salt water?……Correct. And the same with some of the electronics?……(No audible reply). Yes. Now it was pointed out to you by Ms Neill-Fraser that the fire extinguisher was missing from the main saloon?……Yes.


Thank you. Now are you experienced as a surveyor in determining the cause of loss on vessels?……Yes. And to sink a boat one way you can do it is to open up a seacock, correct?……Not without doing something else. What else would you have to do?……You'd have to disconnect the hose that the seacock's connected to. Yes, and to get -……..Unless it wasn't connected - - water to flow into the boat?……That's correct. And depending on the amount of water that would flow into the boat the boat may or may not sink, depending on its construction?……Yes. That's a fact, isn't it?……Yes. And, for instance, if watertight bulkhead doors were closed preventing water from going into certain parts of the boat it may or may not sink, depending on the volume of water?……That's correct. And of course you'd have to also, to sink a boat, ensure that you had an adequate flow of water coming in?……Adequate - not adequate, you'd have to have water flowing in, yes, it could take a certain amount of time. Yes, and to sink a boat like the Four Winds you would need to have a lot of water coming into it.…….Yes. Mm. And would - would you - are you able to suggest the amount of water that it would take to come into Four Winds to sink a boat of its size on its mooring?…….Not without doing the calculations, sir. And how would you do the calculations - is there some formula?…….It would be a volume mass. A volume mass -…….Of the interior of the cabin - What else?…….- to the water flow of the - that was coming in the vessel. Would you accept this proposition from me; assume that you have the pipe cut where the toilet is, assume that another seacock was open with water coming into the vessel, it would be a very very long time until that yacht sank, wouldn't it?…….Not necessarily.


Well we're not talking about a process of a few hours, are we?…….No. No. In fact would you accept this proposition; that to sink the Four Winds just by those two means would take a considerable period of time?…….No, I could not answer that. Can't answer that - but you could answer it by working out volume flows, the volume of the vessel and so forth?…….Yes. All right. But nonetheless to sink it would require a very large volume of water?…….Yes. Thank you. Am I right in thinking that all of the floorboards onboard the yacht were not screwed down when you went down into the main saloon?…….Could you repeat the question please? Yes. Were all the floorboard loose from their fittings when you went down into the main saloon?…….No. And what about for'ard of the main saloon into the next compartments, they were all up, weren't they?…….No. But they had not been screwed down, had they?…….I couldn't - can't - cannot recall that. You can't recall now - thank you. Did you prepare a report for Tasmania Police concerning your observations or, did you prepare a report for your insurer client?…….I wrote a report for the insurance company, yes. And you provided a copy of that to a Detective Sice, is that right?.....That's right. Did you provide that to him on a CD or did you provide that in written form?....To my knowledge, I gave it to him on q CD. Do you have a copy of your report there to the insurer as to the cause of sinking?.....Yes, I have. Will you produce that for me please? Would you pass that to me please? Thank you. That can be returned to the witness please. It was fairly obvious to you over the couple of weeks that you were involved with this vessel that Ms Neill-Fraser was doing everything she could to look after the boat, to get it back into a condition that it


ought to be able to get back into?……The cushions were removed, everything was - tried to be dried, yes. She was pretty active about the boat in your presence wasn't she?……Yes. Drying it out, removing gear that could be salvaged?……Correct. Had the generator removed even I think at one stage?……Yes. Yes. A fairly major job?……Yes. What other work did you see her doing around the boat, anything else?……No. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.



P-415 J.R. ROWE


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr Rowe, you're Jeffrey Raymond Rowe?……Yes. You're a yacht broker?……Yes. And your business is at Newport Marina at Redcliffe in Queensland?……Yes. Did you negotiate the sale of the yacht, the Four Winds?……Yes. And to whom did you sell it?……Susan Neill-Fraser and Bob Chappell. Do you recall the date of sale?……5/9/07. Could it have been a year later?……Sorry? Yes, it could've been, '08. Okay. What was the yacht's history to that point as you knew it?……Depends on how far back you want to go. Just from when it was for sale…….Yes. It was - it was actually for sale originally through our Newport - Manly office and they moved it up to Scarborough Marina and I took over the - the listing and the sale of that boat from Scarborough Marina. You don't mainly operate out of Scarborough Marina, is that right?……I'm sorry? You don't mainly operate out of Scarborough Marina, you operate out of Newport Marina, is that correct?……Yeah, my office is based at Newport but there are three marinas in the area that I operate out of. Okay. All right, you - did you meet Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell?……Yes I did, but not - not originally, my wife did the initial presentation of the boat. Yep. By September 2008 had you met them or -……..Yes, I had. Right. How would you describe Mr Chappell?……Initially quiet, a little slow to get to know but once I did get to know him I found him quite a nice person.

P-416 J.R. ROWE

Was one of those two doing the main business, having most to do about the purchase?……Yes. Yes, Sue did most of the discussion and the negotiations. Right. Do you recall that Mr Chappell - do you recall him getting round on boats?……You mean actively? Yeah…….Yeah, no, he was good. I thought initially that he was a bit uncomfortable on boats but he seemed to be quite - quite capable. Right. Steady on his feet?……Yeah, yes. Did you give them some contacts after the sale?……Yes, I did. Who where they - who where they to?……Oh in fact I gave them a number of contacts even prior to the sale. Jim McKinnon, the diesel mechanic, we needed to get him involved to get the engine started in order to conduct a sea trial. Yeah.…….Then I introduced them to a, initially a delivery skipper called Russell Crichtiton, who was assisted by Peter Stevenson, who then subsequently delivered the boat with Susan and others to Hobart. Yes. Was - do you recall having any discussion while the boat was in Queensland with Ms Neill-Fraser about an electrical panel?…….With regard to what, the electronics or the work that was being done on the boat. About a panel being opened?…….Yes. What was that discussion?…….That discussion revolved around a situation that people thought the boat was being broken into. Yeah.…….At that time, and it was learned that one of the people that was involved working on the boat was an electrician who actually did admit to the fact that he'd been working on the boat at that time. Okay. And he'd done something, had he?…….I'm sorry? And he'd done something concerning electrical fittings?…….Yes, he had he'd been working on the switchboard, or had done some work on the switchboard. Right. And did you inform Ms Neill-Fraser of that?…….Yes, I did.

P-417 J.R. ROWE

The marina at which the boat was moored was changed, wasn't it?…….Yes, it was. And do you recall the reason?…….There were two issues; the - the diesel mechanic, Jim McKinnon, was uncomfortable with the fact that he felt somebody was gaining entry to the boat. Mm.…….Out of - out of hours or when it was locked. There was also a bit of a disagreement or an unpleasant situation developed with another broker who operated out of Scarborough Marina and that affected Jim McKinnon and Sue Neill-Fraser. Right. …….So we decided to move the boat. Do you recall speaking to Sue Neill-Fraser by telephone early in January 2009?…….Yes. Do you recall the date?…….The 8th of January was one occasion. Right. And as to that occasion, can you recall what was said?…….Sue told me that she and Bob had separated. Yeah.…….At which I expressed disappointment. She also - no that was the main topic of the conversation - Okay. Did she offer some reason for the separation or what might have been a reason?.....The comment I remember her making was that she was just tired of having to do everything. How did she sound?...A bit disappointed, but she seemed to have herself together pretty well. Did she mention any future plans?....Oh, yes - she was quite keen on taking the boat to Port Davey and participating in the Royal Tasmanian Yacht Club Bi-annual tour of Tasmania. Did you discuss how she would go about doing that?....I'm just thinking whether it was that conversation I suggested a couple of people that might help her or assist her handle the boat - Yeah?...On that trip, yes. And was that in the context that Mr Chappell wouldn't be doing so? That she would be on her own with the boat?....I think when I suggested a couple of other people, that would have been later, after the boat had sunk.

P-418 J.R. ROWE

I see, okay. After the boat had sunk, did you receive a call from her?....Yes, I did. And did she say anything about ropes on the boat?.....Yes, she mentioned that a number of the ropes had been re - re-positioned on the boat, one in particular was the - were the Genoa sheets had been untied and they'd been re-located back down at the stern of the boat around the winches. Yes….Um - and mentioned that it appeared as if the ropes had been located down there and positioned in order to lower a body, or words to that effect. Were they her words?...Yes. In two thousand - going back now, I'm sorry…..Yes. In August 2070, did you take photographs of the interior of the boat for the purpose of surveying what was there?...Yes, I did, I took the photographs to list it for advertising. Can I show you a copy - photocopy of a photograph…..Yep. Is that one of the photographs you took?……Yes. Thank you. And in the bottom left hand corner what do we see?……A fire extinguisher. Thank you. Was that mounted in any particular way, do you recall?……Was it mounted in any particular way? Yeah…..Yeah, well as it was photographed I think. Okay……Yeah. It wouldn't be loose on board it would be - ……No. Okay. I tender that, your Honour.



P-419 J.R. ROWE

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Also connected with the inventory did you see that the boat had depth - depth sounding devices?……Yes. And did it?……Yes, it did. Thank you. And going forward again, I'm sorry, after the boat had sunk and you get a phone call to see Neill-Fraser did she mention anything about the dinghy and it being found on the day?……Yes, she mentioned that it had been washed up on the beach - washed up on the beach, I just remember making a comment to her about didn't she know - know how to tie a bowline knot, this surprised me that the boat should break away from where it was tied up at the club, and she said, no, she didn't know how to tie a bowline knot but her knots never slipped. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Rowe.


P-420 J.R. ROWE

HIS HONOUR: Just hold this up to the jury will you and point out the fire extinguisher in the bottom left. Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: You in fact described Ms Neill-Fraser as a very lovely and seemed a very genuine person when you spoke with the police didn't you?……Yes. And you didn't express any concern at any stage about her plans and Mr Chappell's plans to sail the boat together?……No. And you discussed with them, I suggest, the possibility of sailing in Queensland waters?…….I don't recall. You wouldn't deny it?…….No. No. And this - that boat was a boat that needed an absolute minimum of two people to operate properly, didn't it?…….It could be handled by two. Yes. And for safety sake, if you were going offshore any particular distance it would be sensible to have additional crew?…….Not for the - not - not the safety of the boat but for - for basically night watches so people could sleep. But in general terms, two people could operate it?…….Could handle it, yes. In fact it was rigged for that purpose, wasn't it?…….Yes. Mm, a self furling Genoa?…….Mm hm. Thank you. When it was in the marina in Queensland at Scarborough, I think you said, you said Mr McKinnon felt that somebody was gaining entrance to the boat?…….Yes.

MR ELLIS SC: Well a bit of hearsay slips out in evidence in chief but it doesn't make it any less hearsay.

HIS HONOUR: Well I - I noticed that it was led without objection and that what it led up to was evidence of, I think, a conversation with the accused - am I right about that?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour, that's right, it led up - it led up to that.

P-421 J.R. ROWE

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well if - well we haven't heard the question yet, we'll listen to the question. Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Do you recall when Mr McKinnon told you this that somebody was gaining entrance to the boat?…….It was after the - it was after the purchase of the boat when we'd - Yes.…….- settled it, and Jim McKinnon was actually doing some work on the boat that was commissioned by Sue and Bob. Right. Now at that stage, whereabouts was the boat, was it on a mooring -…….Scarborough Marina. - or in a marina?…….It was in a marina berth. Right. And was it one of those secure marinas where you can't get onto the jetty or pier unless you have a key to a gate?…….Yes, it was. And the other methodology of getting access to the boat would be to come in via the sea?…….Yes. So whilst the gate is secure, you can always come onto a boat - …….You could. - by other means? Well how many occasions did Mr McKinnon raise this problem with you?…….Maybe two or three times. All right. And how long after the accused and Mr Chappell had taken possession of the boat did this occur?……I - as soon as Jim McKinnon started working on the boat, I think it was the second day. All right, and did he tell you why he had formed that opinion?

MR ELLIS SC: Well, as I say, your Honour, this is hearsay and -

HIS HONOUR: Well this could be hearsay. Mr Gunson, what do you say?

MR GUNSON SC: Well it flows on from the evidence my learned friend led in chief from this witness.

HIS HONOUR: Well it might flow on but is Mr McKinnon to be called on this trial, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: We expect so, your Honour, yes.

P-422 J.R. ROWE

HIS HONOUR: Well Mr Ellis, under s66(2) the - are we in a position where this witness can give evidence of anything that Mr McKinnon said when - about matters that were fresh in Mr McKinnon's mind?

MR ELLIS SC: I'm not sure about freshness in s66, your Honour. Oh yes, I see. Possibly so, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, go ahead, Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Thank you. Well how many times did Mr McKinnon tell you this, two or three times I think you said?……Yes, yep. What did he tell you?……He basically said he was concerned, it felt creepy, there seemed to be someone gaining access to the boat or getting onto the boat. All right, and did he tell you what he based that opinion on?……Things had been moved around and there were screws that had been undone or unscrewed on the electrical switchboard which he felt weren't like that when he left the boat. All right, and what was his role on the boat?……He was the diesel mechanic. Right, and what else did he tell you?……That was about it. All right. But his - was it just his concern about possibly somebody else being on the boat that led to it being moved to another marina or was it also the concern expressed by the accused?……No, it was more his concern. More his concern?……Mm, and - And so -…….I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go on, you're right…….And he was also concerned about the other broker on the marina was - was quite derogatory about his involvement on the boat, the nature of the purchase and what have you, so he just didn't want to be involved with that person. So for two reasons…Yeah two reasons.

P-423 J.R. ROWE

Now was that the last you saw of the Four Winds or did you keep contact?…..Oh no - no, I organised to re-locate it onto the Newport Marina. Right, but did you keep visiting the vessel at the other marina?......Yes, constantly, in fact I did on Sue's behalf - Sue and Bob's behalf a couple of times. And at one stage though before the vessel left, they moved on to the boat for a couple of weeks, didn't they?....That was in Newport, yes. Yes and they were living on the boat until the time it set sail…Yes. From Newport to go down the coast…Yes. And they were very happy with the purchase, weren't they?.....Yes. And they obviously spent a large amount of time, I suggest, doing basic repairs around the boat?....Mm - for the period of time they were on the boat they did, yes. Mr Chappell showed a lot of interest in the electrical side of the boat?....Yes, he did, yes. And expressed some opinions about the quality of the work that had been done in the past?....There was one particular part that he was working on that he found a fault with, which he enjoyed rectifying. And you didn't see any disharmony between the two of them, did you?....No. They appeared to be working together as a team on the boat?....Yes. Appeared to get on very well together?....Yes. And you didn't witness any arguments or disputes?.....No. And they made their plans pretty clear what they hoped the future would hold for them when he eventually retired?.....Yes. Now, I want to suggest to you that you didn't have a conversation with the accused on or about 8th January, that in fact that they had separated? I suggest to you, you were quite wrong about that?....Well, that's my recollection that I did.

P-424 J.R. ROWE

I appreciate your recollection, but I suggest to you again that any conversation you had was about the state of the boat and how things were going back in Hobart after the boat arrived down here……As I recall it, it was my first day back from Christmas holidays. I'd just opened the office, and it was on January 8th. What you were told, I suggest, was that on the voyage down the coast they had separated because he had been admitted to hospital?.....No. That I suggest is what you were told?……No, that's not the case. Were you aware that he'd been admitted to hospital on the trip down the coast?……Yes. And I suggest the conversation was about that?……Not that I recall, no. No. Do you accept that it's a possibility you could be wrong about that and what I put to you is the correct version?……No. And I want to suggest there was no discussion at any stage about her, that is the accused, going off on her own without Mr Chappell?……I agree with that. Yes, thank you. At all times she made it very clear to you that she was sailing in the future with Mr Chappell?……When - yeah, when she was with Mr Chappell. Yes, but in the conversations, I suggest, that took place after the boat got to Hobart it was still made clear that she'd be sailing with Mr Chappell?……No, when she phoned me on the 8th January it was, amongst other things, to tell me that she's separated with Bob. No further questions, your Honour.


P-425 J.R. ROWE


<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. And the question of future sailing was therefore not with Mr Chappell is that right?……Well from following that conversation? Yeah……No. Thank you, Mr Rowe.


P-426 P.A. CONDE

MR ELLIS SC: Call Paul Conde.


HIS HONOUR: Better turn that face down, please, Mr Conde, and take a seat. Yes.

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Mr Conde, you're Paul Andrew Conde?……I am. You live in Dynnyrne?……I do. Work for the Australian Tax Office?……I do. And you've got considerable recreational boating experience?……That is correct. Can you de - briefly?……I've owned recreational boats for thirty something years, I think, used them continuously. I've crewed on racing yachts since 1990 and I've had some cruising experience around the bays and coasts of Tasmania. Do you own a boat yourself?……I do. And did you own that on the 26th January, Australia Day, last year?……I did. And were you out on it that day?……I was. And at about - well in the late - in the afternoon did you see something?……At 3:55 I was motoring back to the marina at the Royal Yacht Club, I saw vessel, the Four Winds, and rafted up alongside it there was a large dark grey rubber dinghy. Right, and was that tied to it?……Yes, it was. Were you with anyone on your boat?……My cousin, Anne Clarke and her husband, Tom Clarke, were with me on the day. It's probably obvious to people who know something about this, but what side was the dinghy tied on?……The dinghy was tied on the port side of Four Winds about mid-ships. Right. And is that the side closest to shore at the time you were looking at it?……The boat was actually facing in a south easterly direction - pardon me, the stern was facing the shore.

P-427 P.A. CONDE

Right…….If that's of any help. Did you see anyone on board?……No. What was the water like, or conditions on the water?……There was a fairly stiff sea breeze, I'd say 15 to 20 knots, and there was about a 3 ft wind chop had been fetched up. And you sound precise when you say 3:55, how can you be so precise?……My cousin and her partner had asked to be back at the Royal Yacht Club Marina at four o'clock and at three fifty five, the time when I saw Four Winds, I checked my watch and said something to the effect that 'we're making good time I should have you back at the marina when you want to get there'. And you did?…….Yes. Okay. Thank you.


P-428 P.A. CONDE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: You didn't see anybody on the deck of Four Winds?…….No.

Had you seen Four Winds earlier in the day or, if you had, did you notice it particularly?…….Not that I can recall, Mr Gunson. All right. And was it a boat that you understood to be really reasonably new to the area?…….I did, yes. You've taken some notice of it previously?…….No. But you have seen it before?…….Not that I can recall. All right. And you said there was a large dark grey inflatable dinghy tied next to it, really dark grey, very very dark?…….Battleship grey. Battleship grey - all right, thank you. I suppose, when you say 'battleship grey' you mean the colour of a warship we might see at the wharf in Hobart?…….Yes, yes that sort of colour. That sort of that - and perhaps a bit darker?…….Mm, possibly. How large was it?…….I would estimate about twelve feet. And did it appear to have an outboard attached?…….I didn't notice the outboard. Right. Well do I understand from that you're not able to say whether there was or was not an outboard on the dinghy when you saw it?…….I can't say one way or another, Mr Gunson. Thank you. But it was tied on the port side - how far along the port side?…….About halfway along. Definitely not hanging off the back?…….No. And - I'll withdraw that. The Four Winds, I think you described on a previous occasion, as 'pitching markedly in the slop'?…….That's correct. And you also made the comment previously that with the dinghy alongside that appeared to be shipping a bit of water over its bow?…….That's true, yes.

P-429 P.A. CONDE

Given your experience as a yachtsman was that the most sensible place for the dinghy to be in those sorts of conditions or should it have been tied off the back?……It would depend what you were doing with it. Perhaps you could amplify that answer…….Yes. If you were - it rather depends also on the design of the boat. Some yachts have got a boarding step at the back - Four Winds had one……I didn't see the stern of Four Winds. Please accept from me that there is evidence that there was a boarding step at the back, a grate at the back…….Okay. With a, I think it was described by somebody, as a gate, is that the right expression?……Um, I couldn't say. But in any event accept that, now with that configuration would that be the most sensible place to have the dinghy, that is alongside taking water and the slop or would you have it hanging off the back?……I think under the conditions I would prefer to put the dinghy alongside because - because of the very fact that the vessel was pitching in the slop. If you can visualise it the stern of the vessel would have been rising and falling quite markedly it would have been difficult to jump from the dinghy, you'd have to coordinate your movements and actually jump from the dinghy onto the boarding step at the back. Alongside you'd just tie it hard up, providing you weren't too concerned about your paint, you'd tie it hard up alongside and the middle of the vessel is that part of the vessel that's pitching less so if there's some provision to go on board halfway along that would be the sensible way to do it under those conditions. But you'd need to have that position halfway along to get on board wouldn't you - ……Oh, you'd need a - - otherwise you're climbing up over wires - ……Over - over - of lifelines, yes. - bales of wires?……Yes. But to keep the dinghy in a sensible position whilst you're on board in those sorts of conditions would you continue to tie it to the side of the yacht such as you've described or would a more sensible yachtsman have it hanging off a rope at the back?……Oh -

P-430 P.A. CONDE

If it's out of use…….Oh, you'd probably tie it off the back of the boat down aft if - Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions.


P-431 P.A. CONDE


<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. You mentioned the dinghy, or were examined about its appearance, could the witness be shown P3 please.

HIS HONOUR: That's the -

MR ELLIS SC: (indistinct words) folder first set and photograph 70 and 71. Now you appreciate in case those photographs, Mr Conde appear to be quite washed out, but is that the shape of the dinghy that you saw?.....I thought the dinghy I saw was darker in colour than that. No, I asked you about the shape…..Um - different. Different?....Mhm. I believe different. In what way?....This dinghy appears to be smaller than the one I saw. Mm? How many do you think would go in that dinghy?....That looks like it's about an 8 or 9 footer. Fit six people in it?....As it's an inflatable I think you could, yes. All right. Now the exhibits in the blue folder please - the -


MR ELLIS SC: Have you got 16 and 17 Mr Conde? Never mind the colour, tell me the shape - is that the same?.....Different. Mhm. In what way?...The dinghy I saw, a I said, Mr Ellis, was - I believe it was larger and I believe the dinghy I saw had a lee cloth across the bow. Right. …This one does not have a lee cloth. The bow - the bow also seems to be somewhat blunter. Okay so at four o'clock you say it is a different dinghy from the one you see in the pictures?...the dinghy - the Quicksilver dinghy in the photographs is not the dinghy I saw at five to four on Australia Day last year. Have you seen these pictures before?....No.

P-432 P.A. CONDE

- today - no?…….No. You haven't seen photographs of that dinghy for a year and coming on nearly two years?…….Well I don't recall seeing any photographs of any dinghy. No - okay, thank you, Mr Conde.


P-433 P.A. CONDE


HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Conde, you're free to go.

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, there's one matter with your Honour's leave I'd like to ask this witness - I just want to simply know what a lee cloth is?

HIS HONOUR: I'll let you ask that and let Mr Ellis re-examine about it - can you tell us what a lee cloth is?

MR GUNSON SC: Mr Conde you nearly got away but you've got to stay, I'm afraid.

WITNESS: A lee cloth is a piece of - well in this case, you'd use waterproof fabric, it's stretched across the bow of the dinghy and its purpose is to keep slop and spray and stuff from coming in - it's like a - it's like - it's a piece of fabric that forms a sort of deck if - as it were.

MR GUNSON SC: So your Honour, this is going to take us further could I ask one more question -


MR GUNSON SC: The question I want to ask is, how far along the dinghy that you saw did the lee cloth extend?

WITNESS: Oh maybe twelve, eighteen inches, something like that - not far.

MR GUNSON SC: And its colour?

WITNESS: Dark grey.

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do want to re-examine as to anything arising out of Mr Ellis

MR ELLIS SC: No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, this time you're free to go, Mr Conde.




<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your full name's Jane Frances Powell?……Yes. And you're a child carer, is that right?……That's right. And do you and your family own a yacht?……Yes. What's that yacht called?……Spare Time. And where do you moor that?……At the Derwent Sailing Squadron. Marieville Esplanade?……Yep, in the marina. Thank you. And did you go out on that yacht on Australia Day last year?……(No audible reply). What time did you head out?……I think it was about a quarter to eleven, ten thirty, eleven on that day. In the morning?……Yes. And who did you go out on the yacht with?……My husband and my two girls. And where did you go?……We headed under the bridge down to Geilston Bay and then over to Bellerive. All right, and what time did you start heading back?……I think it was about half past one because it started to get a bit rough, so we decided to head back. The wind picked up, did it?……Yes, yes. And what - as you came back what did you observe?……We headed back from the eastern shore to the western shore near the Botanical Gardens heading back towards the yacht club and as we sort of got off Battery Point I noticed a dinghy headed out and I only sort of noticed it because it was so rough, we were sort of getting wet with the waves and things and I thought it was unusual for somebody to be heading out, so I just - yeah, I noticed a dinghy with a lady in it heading out.


When you say it was heading out what direction was it coming from in relation -……..From Battery Point, in the Battery Point area, out to - yeah, to the moorings. And what sort of dinghy was it?……In - just an inflatable dinghy. Did it have a motor on it?……Yes, an outboard motor on it. Do you remember what colour the dinghy was?……A light grey with a black outboard motor on it. Thank you. And how many people were in the dinghy?……Just the one. And what did that person look like?……It was a lady with sort of light brown hair and she just had a white wet weather jacket on. What age do you think she was?...I sort of thought she was in her late forties, early fifties. Thank you. And did you - did you observe, or were you able to tell from where the dinghy was headed?....Just from the distance it was, it was headed out to a yacht that wasn't too far away from where we were. And what did that yacht look like?....Oh, it was just a large white steel yacht. And was it sort of by itself, or were there lots of yachts around?.....No, it was sort of the only one in the area - there was others sort of nearby by not real close. And so when you say nearby - were the others closer to shore or further -…Um - probably further out. And could you see anyone aboard that yacht?....No. Not that I saw, no. All right, and what time do you think it was that you saw this person in the dinghy?....I thought it was probably about two o'clock only because when we got back to shore my daughter made a phone call, and I checked what time she made the call on her phone, and sort of gathered it was about half an hour from where we saw her to get back into shore. Thank you. Yes, thank you, your Honour.




<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Can I take you back to the day - the wind was quite strong, wasn't it?.....Yes, it was, yes. And are you an experienced yachtswoman?....Oh, not experienced, no. I've been out a few times but - yes. And the seas were a bit rough?...Yes. And in fact I think you were taking some water onto your boat?....Mm. we were. That's correct. I think you've described the conditions as quite windy and choppy…Choppy, yes. Thank you. You say you saw a small rubber dinghy with an outboard motor?.....Mhm. That's right. And it was grey in colour?....Yes. Definitely wasn't a white dinghy?....I couldn't say it definitely wasn't white. You'd formed the impression it was grey….A light grey, yes. You don't remember seeing any writing along the side of the dinghy?.....No. Bit trade name like Quicksilver, or something like that?....No, nothing like that. But then you were close enough to have seen that if it was on it, wouldn't you?…….Yes. Thank you. And there was a female sitting in the rear controlling the outboard?…….Mm hm. And you described her to the police as having dark blond or light brown shoulder length hair, didn't you?…….Mm hm. Now that was your memory at the time?…….Yes. And you were interviewed by the police on the 30th of January?…….Yes, that would be right.


And you were quite adamant at that time that what you saw was a woman with dark blond or light brown shoulder length hair?…….Mm hm. And you hadn't seen neither her or the dinghy before?…….No. Right. And you were concerned about a little dinghy like that being out in the rough conditions as you saw them?…….Yes. Correct?…….Yes. And the dinghy got as close as about a hundred and fifty metres from you?…….Mm hm. Correct?…….Mm hm. And you were keeping a pretty good eye on it?…….Oh yes. You thought it was going - you thought it was going to go over, didn't you?…….Well I actually thought - A bit of sport?…….Yeah, yes. Yes, okay - good. And you just assumed that the lady that you saw in this grey dinghy with blond hair was heading towards the steel yacht?…….Yes. That was an assumption on your part, wasn't it?…….Mm hm - yes. And you didn't actually see the dinghy go to the yacht?…….No. Thank you. And at no stage, do I understand you to get a look at the lady's face so that you could identify her?…….No. The best you could tell the police was, it was dark blond or light brown shoulder length hair, average to small build - and of course you didn't see the person standing up, did you?…….No. You formed that opinion about their build when you saw them seated in the dinghy?…….Yes. What position did the person have in the dinghy, were they sitting on the side of it?…….No, at the back. Right. …….With the - with the motor.


And sitting down in the dinghy or sitting on the, I suppose, the transom at the back?…….Yeah, I presume there was a seat or something - You assumed there was a seat in there?…….Mm hm. And they gave - and that person gave you the impression they were seated on a seat operating the outboard?…….Yes. And that was the distinct impression you formed - correct?…….Yes. You've got answer because it's all being recorded, you see - …….Sorry. - and transcribed.…….Mm hm. All right. Can you give me a better description of the dinghy other than grey - you said it was smallish, what size would you put it at?…….……Oh, gosh, I'm not very good with sizes, just the average - like an average rubber dinghy, yeah. It doesn't help us……No. All right. Did it appear to be a big dinghy?……No, I wouldn't have said it was a big dinghy. A little - a little one?……Medium sized. Medium sized, all right. All right. Do you recall if it had a pointed bow on it or you didn't take that much notice?……I didn't take that much notice but - oh - But you noticed something else, you were about to tell us, what was that?……No, I couldn't - it was nothing distinctive it was just -

A grey rubber dinghy with a woman in it?……A grey - yes. Thank you, I've no further questions, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

<REXN - MR SHAPIRO: In relation to the outboard what do you say about the nature of the outboard?

MR GUNSON SC: I haven't asked any questions about the outboard, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Questions about the dinghy and the -

HIS HONOUR: Well what - what precisely do you want to ask about the outboard?

MR SHAPIRO: Perhaps if I ask the question again. (Resuming): What impression did you get of the age of the outboard?

HIS HONOUR: Well, no, just a minute, that doesn't arise out of cross-examination, Mr Shapiro, does it?

MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour, well given that I'd seek leave to ask that one additional question.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I'm in your Honour's hands as to that.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I'll let you do it. Go on.


<FUR - EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. Yes, so what view did you form of the age of the outboard?…..It all looked new, the dinghy and the outboard looked new. Thank you.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, do you want to cross-examine further?

<FUR XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Yes, thank you. What particular impression did you form of the outboard to say that it was new?……Shiny. It was shiny. And that's the best you can say?……Yes. So a person who buys a brand new outboards and gets it out of the shop and puts it on their boat has a new outboard?……Mmm. And the person who cleans it regularly and keeps it shiny in your book it looks like a new outboard, is that right? That's logically the case isn't it?……Yeah, yes, yes. So all you can really say is what you saw was an outboard that appeared shiny and because it was shiny you formed that opinion?……Yes. Thank you.





<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Is your name John Cameron McMillan?……That's correct. And what's your occupation?……Commercial diver. Okay, and do you work for Taylor Bros?……Beg your pardon? Do you work for Taylor Bros?……No, I've got my own business. We work from Taylor Bros' workshop. You work from there?……Yeah, one of their workshops. Okay, where's that workshop?……44 Napoleon Street. And so that's in Battery Point?……Battery Point, yep. All right, now do you recall a day in January 2009 when there was a yacht that appeared to be sinking on its mooring at Marieville Esplanade?……Yep. Okay. What were you doing at 7:00 a.m. that morning?……I was bringing one of our workboats from the Domain Slip around to the public jetty at Battery Point. And did you run into someone you know?……Yeah, I was - Richard Herron was in one of the rowing club runabouts and he come up alongside the boat when I was off sort of Battery Point there. Okay…….Yep. And did he tell you that there was a yacht sinking, did he?……Yeah, he asked me if I was going down to it. Okay. And what did you do when you found out that's what was happening?…….I think Richard asked me to ring the police but I didn't have a number so I called Port Control and I think they got in contact with them. They asked me to go down and see if there was anyone onboard the boat. Okay. And so did you go to the yacht?…….Yeah, I went down - I was in a reasonably big boat so I just stayed off it, it looked like it was - wasn't far off sinking so - yeah, and I just yelled out to see if there was anyone onboard.


Do you remember what the yacht was called?…….No. And did you get any response of anyone on the yacht?…….No. And do you remember whether the door to the cabin was open or not?…….I think it was, I think it was but I'm not a hundred percent sure on that. Okay. And was there a dinghy with the yacht?…….No. Right. All right. So what did you do then?…….I went back in and tied - tied up at the public wharf and went around to the workshop, because the boat was fairly low in the water - we got - there was no one at the yacht at the time so we got some of our pumps out when my guys came into work and took a couple of pumps out to the boat and gave them a hand to get the pumps going to pump the water out. All right. And when you got back to the yacht was - was there anyone else there?…….Yeah, the Marine Police were there, a couple of other guys onboard, I think. Okay. And so what did you do with your pump?…….Sorry? What did you do with the pump that you'd taken back out?…….Put it down the front hatch, put one of the pipe hoses down in the front hatch and started it up and got it going, got it pumping. When you say "the front" is that right at the front of the -…….Oh up in the bow are there was a - a hatch in the bow area there, someone had already gone onboard and opened it up. Okay. And did you place the hose from the pump down the hatch?…….Down the hatch, yeah. And started pumping water, is that right?…….Yeah. Did you enter the wheelhouse of the yacht at all?…….No. And - well how did you get your pump back?…….Oh we - there was plenty of people out there so we left the boat after we got the pump going and we had work to go and do so we came back later on during the day, I can't recall the time, and picked up the pump off the boat after they'd got the water out - pumped it out. Thank you, your Honour.




HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Yes. Could the witness be shown P3, please, photographs 7 and 8, and also photographs 1 and 2, please. Sorry, just hold those for a second, if you would. Just have a look at and 8 for me. You see in photograph 7 three hatches, there's two directly in front of the wheelhouse?……Yep. And one for'ard of that, for'ard of the mast?……Yep. Is it the one for'ard of the mast that you're talking about?……Yep. Thank you. Yes, I have no further questions, your Honour.





P-447 R.J. KING



MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, I call Richard King.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat.

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr King, you are Richard Jonathon King?…….Yes. You live at Tea Tree?…….Yes. And for a number of years you've known Claire Chappell?…….Probably nine, ten. Years?…….Yes. Yes. And how did you come to know her?…….Oh through a mutual friend. And in that time if - have you had a certain relationship with - with Claire Chappell?…….Yes. What - what is the nature of that?…….Basically I've become the person she calls when she needs someone to talk to. Okay. And is that often - or has that been often?…….Well sometimes it's been twice a day for a week and other times it hasn't been at all for six months. Yes. Now Claire suffers, we've heard, from problems with mental illness?…….Yes. Is that your experience with her?…….Yes. And you're not qualified to diagnosis, but are you - but what do you understand those - what form does that illness take, as displayed to you?…….Oh well, mainly paranoia.

P-448 R.J. KING

Yes. How do you use that term, what's - what's paranoia mean?…….Well she's looking for threats that might hurt her or the people around her. Yes.…….And they aren't necessarily real but she will see them anyhow. Yes.…….And it's basically a delusion. Right. And does she convey these to you and you try to help her to deal with them, is that right?…….Yes, the main problem is that she doesn't know that they aren't real so she has to be reassured that they aren't going to hurt her because there is some way of stopping them and that's what I do. Yes. On the 25th January last year how was her condition as perceived by you?……Oh, it was - it had become very difficulty, it was taking a couple of hours a day. And she was suffering delusions I take it?……Yes. And they were making her fearful because of the paranoia?……Yes. And do they take any particular form?……Oh, she tendered to look for things that could be dangerous to people around her. Yes……During this - or that period of about a month she was becoming more concerned about the safety of yachts at sea and that her father was in very poor health. Right. And was there a connection, as she saw it and expressed it to you, between yachts and her father at around that time?……Yes. What was that?……She was deeply concerned that he was on a yacht and as such it threatened - if not handled properly it could have resulted in some untoward outcome. Right. Did you receive a telephone call from her on the 26th January last year?……Yes. And in what stage was she?……Basically she was so terrified she couldn't put one word together and get it out in one piece. It took several minutes before she could be calmed down to the point where she could take a Valium tablet.

P-449 R.J. KING

Right. Later in the day did you have a further conversation with her or contact with her?……I think I spoke to her twice that day. Yes……And one was after her brother had visited. I don't remember the exact detail of what was happening in each call. No. Did she describe to you being fearful when her brother visited?……Yes, she was fearful of something connected to him, though I don't think she was fearful of him. No. Did she actually speak to him, as you understood what she was saying?……No, she was hiding in her flat and he was knocking on the door. Right…….She knew that he was there and he knew that she was there, - Yes…….- but she couldn't open the door. That evening did you attempt to do something in relation to the situation?……Yes, it was stressing clear to the point where it was becoming very difficult for me to control things, or to handle it, - Yes…….- and it was also stressing Tim because Claire wouldn't answer when he thought she should. Well he'd assume, I presume, that she hadn't spoken to him, is that right?……That's right, so I decided the best way would be to have a quick word with Tim to let him know that she's now okay and that if he's worried about her he should give me a call and I'll find out just how she is. So just to recap then, you understood that Claire was suffering from delusions, as she had in the past, but that Tim had tried to see her that day but she'd - she didn't answer the door or she didn't answer him and so he wouldn't have known whether she was in or not?……That's right, but he suspected or knew she was in and she knew it was him because she'd heard him talking outside the door. Yes. All right, so as I say you - or as I asked, you resolved to do something, what was that?……Well what I needed to do was have a quick word with Tim and to do that I needed to speak to him but I didn't have his phone number, I don't think it was in the book, so I planned to get it from Bob Chappell and I had his number as a contact for Claire from a previous time -

P-450 R.J. KING

Yep……..- and so I dialled that number to speak to Bob to get the number so I could speak to Tim. Right. Had you actually spoken to Bob before?……Not in the last five years or so, I'd seen him only once. Right. Okay, when you dialled that number who answered?……Oh the first time I dialled it during the day there was no answer but I called back again that night after dark, I assumed they were out on the boat for the day. Yeah. About what time did you dial during the day and got no answer?……Oh it would've been in the early afternoon, I think. Mhm. And evening, do you know the time that you rang?.....Oh, some time after nine thirty or close. Did Mr Chappell answer?.....No. Who did?....Sue. Sue Neill-Fraser?....Yes. Yes. And did you tell her the nature of your call?.....I explained that I needed a phone number for Tim and that I was a friend of Claire's. And did you talk more?....Yes. Did you indicate the situation to her?....Yes. Did you indicate in that call that Claire was suicidal?....No. Did you believe that she was suicidal?......No, quite the opposite. Did you indicate in that call that she was having fears for her father and in respect to the boat?......Yes, she was fearful of the boat and of him being on the boat. Did you indicate that she was likely to go wherever the boat was?...I didn't indicate it was likely, because it was a very vague possibility she might do. Did she know where it was?....No, she didn't know where it was, she didn't know what it was called. I asked her those questions and she couldn't answer them and I didn't find out what it was called or where it was until the news the night after Bob was missing.

P-451 R.J. KING

Right. Did she - so you spoke to Sue Neill-Fraser. Did you ask her in particular about one of Claire's concerns about Bob, that is, the state of his health?....Yes. What was that that was said?.....I was trying to work out how much of what Claire was telling me was delusion and how much was reality because all I could do was reinforce reality and since Claire had been concerned over the last month for the chance that her father might suddenly die, I asked sue whether there was any truth in that and she denied it - well, over-enthusiastically. Okay. Now was - did she appear to be stressed by the conversation?...No, throughout the first part of the conversation she was very friendly and helpful and once she'd realised that I wasn't someone else, I actually knew what I was talking about there. But once I asked her the question about Bob's health then I - I felt that she wasn't being honest with me.

MR GUNSON SC: I object to - well I object to that, your Honour.

MR ELLIS SC: All right -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, don't - yes, you can say what she said but you can't say what you thought she was thinking because you really don't know that. Mr Ellis?

MR GUNSON SC: And with the greatest of respect, I'd ask you to invite the jury to reject - not reject but to ignore that passage.

HIS HONOUR: Well I'm not sure precisely what the witness said at that point. Mr Ellis, do you remember?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, I do.

HIS HONOUR: What did he say?

MR ELLIS SC: He felt that she wasn't being truthful.


WITNESS: Not in exactly those words.

HIS HONOUR: Well just a minute - just a minute. Well -

P-452 R.J. KING

MR ELLIS SC: I don't ask the jury to bear it in mind, I'll try to - it was objected to, I think the objection was sound.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, the jury - the jury shouldn't have regard to this witness' assessment of Ms Neill-Fraser's truthfulness or otherwise. But we can go on with whatever was said next.

MR ELLIS SC: Indeed - thank you. (Resuming): Did you notice a change of tone from Ms Neill-Fraser to you when the question of Bob's health arose?…….Yes. Thank you. It changed from, you said earlier was "relaxed and pleasant" and what did it change to?…….How do I put it? It - it sounded like she was trying to get me to believe something that she didn't believe. No - okay, no.

MR GUNSON SC: I object to that again.

MR ELLIS SC: I don't think that will pass muster.


WITNESS: I'm sorry, I -

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Anyway, there was a change - can we leave it on the basis that there was a change -…….Yes. - from relaxed and pleasant?…….Yes. Okay. So can we say that it was no longer - she was no longer relaxed in tone?…….That's correct. I might leave it there, I think, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. (Resuming): And following the conversation with her, did you then ring Tim Chappell?…….Yes. And did it for a long time?…….Well twenty minutes to half an hour, I suspect. Okay. Thank you, Mr King.

P-453 R.J. KING


P-454 R.J. KING

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Mr King, the call was made I suggest at:05 that night……From Neill-Fraser? No, to Mrs Neill-Fraser - yes, Ms Sue Neill-Fraser……Right. Do you argue with that, do you debate it?……Well it's in the police records I think that's about right. I've just asked you what you knew, was the call made at 5 minutes past 10 by you?……It would have been made at about five minutes past 10 by me. Thank you. And it lasted for the better part of half an hour didn't it?……Yes. Thank you. And when you were interviewed by the police about this you had this to say about the conversation. Please listen carefully - Throughout our conversation Sue was pleasant and talked like a friend. She was relaxed, her voice had no stress or anything to suggest anything unusual was considered. Sue sounded like she had nothing to hide.

MR ELLIS SC: No, well, your Honour, my learned friend has just objected to the very thing that he now seeks to lead.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I seek to clear up the mess left by my friend, your Honour, as a result of the way in which he questioned this witness.

HIS HONOUR: Well the objection is that you can put to the witness what he said about tone of voice, manner of talking, relaxation, lack of stress, etcetera, but what you can't go into is what he couldn't go into and that is whether she sounded truthful or untruthful or anything of that nature.

MR GUNSON SC: In fact, your Honour, could I ask the jury be invited to leave the witness box, go to the jury room and the witness - sorry, from the jury box and the witness be asked to wait outside.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, would you go the jury room please.

WITNESS: Do you want me outside?

P-455 R.J. KING

HIS HONOUR: Yes, please, if you could wait in the foyer. WITNESS LEAVES THE WITNESS BOX



HIS HONOUR: Well it's your objection, Mr Ellis, do you want to say anything more about your objection?

MR ELLIS SC: I don't think so, your Honour, leading from a witness. It sounded like she had nothing to hide, in my submission it's clearly an inadmissible characterisation and deduction on the part of a witness of the state of mind of another.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Characterisation by my friend is correct, but several times and despite what your Honour said and despite my friend's attempts to get the witness to stay on the straight and narrow he strayed and the jury have been left with an impression, despite whatever your Honour says to them, about what passed in this conversation and the conclusions he reached. Now there lies the problem.

HIS HONOUR: Well I'm not allowed to solve that problem by letting you ask a question that's not proper when it's been objected to, am I.

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, I can ask the question, I submit, on the basis that this is what she told - he told the police in the - and that's what it's about, not his impression.

HIS HONOUR: But how is it relevant that he told the police, "Sue sounded like she had nothing to hide"?

MR GUNSON SC: It's relevant to overcome the impression that the prosecution have left as a result of the questioning of this witness, and that's the only basis upon which we put it. Now it's before them, albeit objected to by me, but nonetheless it got out, not once but twice, that he changed - she'd changed - sorry, he noticed a change in her voice and it sounded like, etcetera. Now I wanted to put the whole passage to him because nowhere does he say that at all in his statement to the police. If it please your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: No, well I propose to tell the jury that this witness can't give evidence about whether the accused was being untruthful in his view or trying to hide something in his view, that they must ignore anything to that effect that was said during his evidence in chief and that the - another consequence of that is that you're not allowed to go into that area even if there were questions that you


could ask that might get you somewhere, I think that's what I'll tell them. So I'll get them back and we'll have the witness back too.

P-458 R.J. KING


HIS HONOUR: Well, ladies and gentlemen, as you may be aware, there are rules of evidence - there are rules about witnesses may say or m 5 ay not say, and about what questions may be asked and may not be asked. A witness can describe his or her observations of how a person sounded and a person's manner and how a person spoke, but what a witness - there's one thing a witness can't say and that is what somebody else was thinking, because of course, that's something that the witness doesn't really know and a witness can't give evidence ' "I thought this person had something to hide." "I thought this person had nothing to hide" "I thought this person was telling the truth" or "I thought this person wasn't telling the truth". Now, sometimes witnesses who aren't used to giving evidence in accordance with the rules of evidence, say things that shouldn't be said, and then it's the job of the trial judge to tell the jury to ignore that evidence. Now, this witness isn't able to say anything about whether Ms Neill-Fraser was telling the truth or not or whether she had anything to hide of not. He shouldn't be asked questions about that and you should ignore anything that he said about what she was thinking when he was giving - when he was answering Mr Ellis' questions and one aspect of this rule of evidence is that Mr Gunson isn't allowed to go into those areas, even if there are questions that he could otherwise ask that might do him some good. So we'll - you'll just have to ignore anything that this witness might start to say, or begin to say, or have said in the past about whether Ms Neill- Fraser was truthful or untruthful or had anything to hide or had nothing to hide. Back to you, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you. (Resuming): What you said to the police when asked by them, to give your account, is this: I asked Sue if Claire's statement that Bob was extremely unwell and could die at any time had any truth. She said it did not. That's correct, isn't it?…….That's right. Yes. Then you added: Throughout out conversation Sue was pleasant and talked like a friend, she was relaxed. Her voice had no stress or anything to suggest that anything unusual was considered.

P-459 R.J. KING

You told Mr Ellis though that you noticed a change in her voice at some stage - that's correct, isn't it?…….Yes. You didn't say that to the police, did you?…….The way it's written in the statement - Did you say that to the police or not?…….The statement I made is correct. Did you say to the police, at any stage, that you noticed a change in the voice of Ms Neill-Fraser during the course of a thirty minute, or thereabout, conversation?…….No, I did not say it to the police. Thank you. And when were you first asked about whether there was any change in her voice in the course of the conversation?…….I told the police - When were you first asked whether there was any change in her voice in the course of the conversation?…….It was not asked of me by the police because I volunteered it to them, but it did not enter the statement. To whom did you volunteer it?…….The policeman at the first interview. Who was that?…….I don't have a record - Purdy or something like that. And it didn't make a statement - into a statement, a statement that was supposed to record all of the events of that night - is that right?…….It - it did, in that the statement that was made - - Is it in the statement? Is it in the written document?……The change of voice - Is it in the written document?

HIS HONOUR: I think he's trying to answer your question, Mr Gunson. Is the change of voice in the written document?

WITNESS: I say she was pleasant at all points and I believe that is in the document. What she said to me when her voice changed is the way I've heard mothers tell children when they want to reassure them but it was very clearly a change of voice but it did not contradict what I said in the statement which is that she was pleasant.

P-460 R.J. KING

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Thank you……She was overly pleasant. Yes, and talked like a friend?……Yes. And appeared relaxed?……Yes. And her voice had no stress?……Yes. Thank you. Now in the course of this conversation which lasted thirty minutes obviously you had a lot to impart to Ms Neill-Fraser about Clare and her condition?……I had something to impart but what is a lot? The two of you spoke for the better part of thirty minutes didn't you?……Yes, but I didn't speak for thirty minutes I spoke for maybe half that. Well did Ms Neill-Fraser talk to you about other matters in this thirty minutes?……Yes, yes. And what did she tell you?……Well I didn't keep a record of everything we spoke about. Well did she tell you there'd been a trip on the yacht recently with her and Bob from Queensland down to Tasmania?……I knew that already. I asked you did she tell you that?……I think we discussed it. Well you either think it or you know it, what is it?……It must have been mentioned. Thank you. Had you ever spoken to Ms Neill-Fraser before this occasion?……Not that I know of. What's that mean, you have no memory of any earlier conversation?……Well that's right. Thank you. And when you telephoned you basically outlined your assistant role with Clare's condition?……That's right. Yes. And Ms Neill-Fraser made it very clear to you that she was aware of the difficulties that Claire encountered, didn't she?......No.

P-461 R.J. KING

Well, it didn't come as a shock or a surprise to her, did it?....No, she knew there were problems. Yes. And she knew the general nature of the problems about the delusions from which Claire unfortunately suffered…..Well, I don't know that. I can't tell what she knew. She told you - she told you that, didn't she?......No. I told her that I believed Claire was delusional and paranoid. She didn't need to tell me. And you told her that Claire had a fantasy about going out on to Bob's and her yacht and sailing away?....No, I did not. Do you deny that?....Do I deny not saying no or - Do you deny any discussion at all about Claire in her delusional state, saying words to the effect that she wanted to go out on to the yacht and sail away on it?....No, I did not say that she wanted to do that. What - Go on - ….Claire was afraid of that yacht. The last thing she would have done is gone to it. What I told - Go on - ….Ms Neill-Fraser was that if Claire asked for access to the yacht she should deny it. At the same time, I put myself in a position where if Claire decided to do something silly like that, that I could talk her out of it. There was no way she was going to get to get to that yacht. It's not a question of whether she was going to go, the question is what information you imparted to Ms Neill-Fraser about what Claire said. Now, can you concentrate on that. What did you tell her that Claire had said about that yacht or any other yacht or her concerns about her father?...Have you got half an hour and a record of conversation? I can't remember it that accurately. You do the best you can to tell me please. …I said that if Claire was to contact her, trying to get access to the yacht, she should deny it. I also said that Claire was fearful of the yacht. And Claire was fearful of the yacht because of what?……She was paranoid. And she was worried about her father being on the yacht and that he may in some unexplained way die?……She was worried about her

P-462 R.J. KING

father dying and she was worried about the yacht, they're actually separate things in her imagination. These are the things that you imparted to Ms Neill-Fraser that night?……Did I impart Claire's fear for her father's health? Yes…….Yes. Did I impart Claire's fear of the yacht and yachts in general sinking, yes. And Claire had told you or led you to believe that Mr Chappell was extremely unwell?……She - Claire had not led me to believe that. Well she at least told you that?……She led me to believe that she feared that. Yes…….I believed it was a delusion. Yes, and also in this delusional state she told you that she had a belief that her father could die at any time?……Yes.

And that is why you asked Sue Neill-Fraser whether Bob Chappell was extremely unwell?……I needed to verify whether it was a delusion or a reality. And you wanted to be able to reassure Claire?……In a sense, yes. And it's also the reason you asked Sue Neill-Fraser whether Mr Chappell could die at any time, again so you could reassure Claire?……No, so I knew where reality lay. And also reassure Claire?……I don't think reassuring Claire if she has a delusion is possible. But in any event you don't deny that that's a question you raised with Sue Neill-Fraser in this thirty minute or thereabout telephone call?……I asked the question as to whether Bob Chappell was very sick and could die at any time. Yes. And you were told that he was in a good state of health?……That is the words she used, yes. Yes. Now sadly these obsessions that Claire has with death go back to the time when her grandmother died?……Well basically that made her think more about death and so her paranoia -

P-463 R.J. KING

The answer to my question is 'yes' isn't it?…….Well it goes back further than that. All right, and how far back does it go in your unqualified belief?…….I belie 5 ve a friend of hers died mountaineering in New Zealand, I'm not sure - And you have previously said -…….- just when. - that Claire's paranoia amplifies death as an outcome?…….Yes. Thank you. …….That's the worse possible outcome, which is what a paranoid thinks of. And can I just ask you something; are you - are you qualified in psychiatry or psychology?…….No. You seem to contend to have a knowledge of it, where did you gain all this knowledge?…….Of if you've spent thirty years listening to people on the phone telling you how terrible is and - You're a counsellor, are you?…….I'm not a trained counsellor, no, I'm just - they ring me and then they change their behaviour and they go off and they're successful. Are they? Really? …….Why would they come back if they don't. I don't think we need to go down that path. But on the 25th of January, you've previously said, "Claire was at the peak of her delusional activity" - correct?…….Yes. And you've previously said, "She spoke to me about escaping from persecution she believed that she and the family were threatened with"?…….Well the persecution of everyone she holds dear. Yes. And Claire asked you if you knew how to sail and you said, "Yes"?…….That is correct. And Claire spoke about boats sinking if they weren't properly handled at sea?…….That is correct. And all of this you imparted to Ms Neill-Fraser, didn't you?…….I believe so, yes. Yes - thank you. And your telephone call to Ms Neill-Fraser was a result of these problems or Tim's inability to have contact with

P-464 R.J. KING

Claire that day?…….The fact that she answered the phone and that I needed to persuade her to give me - or pass my number to Tim. No, I think you misunderstand my question; the purpose that you telephone Ms Neill-Fraser was to -…….I didn't, I telephoned Bob's number she answered it. Thank you. The reason you telephoned a house where Ms Neill- Fraser happened to be was to try and get Tim's telephone number is that right?……Correct. Thank you. Ms Neill-Fraser in the conversation said - Clare getting access to the boat was not likely to be an issue as it was on a mooring and Clare wouldn't be able to get out there. That's what she told you didn't she?……No, I think she said that Clare couldn't get to the boat because she didn't know where the tender was kept. And she told you it was on a mooring, that is the boat was on a mooring?……Yes, I thought it would probably be on a mooring, it was a fairly large boat. Thank you. And I suggest again to you she told you it was on a mooring?……I don't believe she needed to tell me that. The fact that you needed a tender to reach it effectively communicated that to me. When she said - Clare can't get to the boat because she doesn't know where the tender is kept. - it struck me as a bit surprising that any tender couldn't be used to get to any yacht and why it should be that particular tender that must be used - Thank you. Thank you. You said in evidence in chief that you regarded it as a vague possibility that Clare would go there or try and do something, they're my words?……Very vague. Very vague, thank you. And you in fact said that to Sue Neill-Fraser that it was - Look, the likelihood of anything happening, the likelihood of Clare going there is very remote.

P-465 R.J. KING

Or words to that affect?……Yes. Thank you. Is it possible that in this long conversation that you inadvertently, without intending it to occur, left Ms Neill-Fraser with the impression that Clare's condition had peaked to a point where she was possibly suicidal, not that that was your intention to convey it, but you possibly left that impression?……Well what impression she gets is up to her. I can't control what she thinks or guess what she thinks. No……I can't even give that as evidence. No, but you could tell us whether so much was said that - or that evening in the course of the conversation that could leave her with that impression because you did discuss issues involving, I suggest, suicide as well. It was mentioned, wasn't it?……No. No, I don't believe it was. I suggest to you it was mentioned, would you deny that?……That's correct, I deny it. But you could have nonetheless left the impression inadvertently?……Well I could be delusional, Ms Neill-Fraser could be delusional. Just answer my question. Could you have left the impression -

MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, the witness really can't answer a question as to how - could you have left an impression without saying anything, is it possible, no one can answer that.

WITNESS: I have no evidence -

HIS HONOUR: Well no, no, just a minute. Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: I'm not going to press it.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Any further questions, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.


P-466 R.J. KING



MR ELLIS SC: Call Shane Etherington.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes?

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Constable, you're Shane Stephen Etherington?…….Correct, I am. And you're a police officer, obviously?…….Yes, I am. A constable in the Tasmanian Police Service?…….That's correct. At Hobart Uniform?…….That's correct. And that was your position on Australia Day that - I'm sorry, the day after Australia Day, the 27th of January 2009?…….Correct. And that morning were you working Constable Stockdale?…….I was. And were the two of you asked to go somewhere?…….We were, we were tasked to attend Marieville Esplanade in relation to a sinking yacht. When you got there what did you see?…….A yacht that was submerged in the water, approximately, a hundred - two hundred metres offshore. Okay. Did you go out to it?…….No, I didn't. Did Constable Stockdale?…….He did. How did he do that?…….I believe there was a - some sort of vessel on there, a rowing competition that morning, and we spoke to a gentleman and Constable Stockdale arranged to get a lift out there in his dinghy. Okay. And as he was there, did you speak to someone who was on the shore by - there at that time?…….I did, Mrs Susan Fraser. Okay. Is that Sue Neill-Fraser the accused in Court?…….Correct. What did she tell you, if anything?…….She stated to me that her and her husband were the owner of the yacht that was sinking.


Did she say when she had seen him?…….Yeah, throughout the conversation she stated that she'd seen him earlier the previous day in the afternoon. Yes.…….Aboard the boat. Right. And did she observe some - or seem to observe something?…….She observed the - the dinghy, which was just on the shore. Right. What sort of dinghy was that?…….Just a - I believe it was a grey and blue dinghy, like a small skip. Yeah.…….That was just wading unattached. All right. Did she say anything about that?…….She explained to me that that belonged to the boat Four Winds and it was part of her yacht. Did she describe to you what Mr Chappell - and did she describe him as her husband?…….Yes. Yes. Did she describe to you what her husband, Mr Chappell, had been wearing when she last saw him?…….Yes, she did. She gave me detail about his clothing. From memory I believe it was brown shoes, cream shorts, a shirt. She did state that he had a watch on. Right. Did she say anything about his health?……She just explained to me that he was in quite poor health, she later explained that he'd suffered from severe nosebleeds in the past and mainly when he was coming down from Queensland, brining the yacht from Queensland. Right……He had a massive nosebleed up there. Yep. Did she attribute that to anything?……An overdose - a massive overdose of Aspro. Did she say what had happened to him as a result of the nosebleed?……That he was hospitalised in Queensland, I believe. Did she say anything about his attitude to her sailing on?……That he was a little upset about her continuing on. And did she say that she - anything about her abilities to operate the yacht?……My - yeah, well she stated to me that she was quite an accomplished sailor.


Did she say what her husband was doing on board the yacht, or had been doing on board the yacht?……Making some repairs in relation to some panels that had apparently been loosed by unknown persons.

Right…….And making some repairs to electrical and the motor. Did she ask you to contact other people?……She did. Do you remember who that was?……I can't remember the exact order but I believe it was both her daughters - Yes…….- and then sometime later Mr Chappell's son, Tim. Right. And while they were coming did you continue to speak to her and ask questions?……I did. What did she - I'm sorry, you mentioned a panel, was it - or panels, was it in that conversation?……That was previously she stated to me - actually she stated that the boat - she believed the boat may have been boarded - Yes…….- in the days prior to Mr Chappell being on the boat. Did she nominate a number of days prior?……From memory I believe it was three, two to three days. Right……And she did state that Mr Chappell was on the boat attending to those loose panels as well. Right. She expressed to you some - well some belief about what might have happened?……In relation to the panels? Or in relation to the yacht……Yeah, she did state that she believed previously that - or she first explained that she believed that a yacht similar to that were used to smuggle drugs from other countries and brought to Australia and the drugs were stashed in these similar panels and that she believed that that's may be what had happened to her boat. Right. So that morning, the 27th, at about 7 o'clock she's saying - well a little bit after 7 presumably, she's saying that's what she believed had happened?……It was probably a little bit after 7, it was probably - yeah, at around -


Yeah, right. Well the drug smugglers have come on board and retrieved the smuggled drugs and -

MR GUNSON SC: That's not what has been said. My friend should put it to 5 the witness what he did say and not exaggerate it.


MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): She told you that she believed that people smuggled - had yachts and they got yachts like this and they smuggled drugs on them?……That's correct. And she further asked me to - or if we were as a department, Tasmania Police, could get our police dogs and have the digs sniff the boat. Right. And was this - was this still at a time when Constable Stockdale was out on the water?……Correct. So there was at that time no saying whether or not Mr Chappell himself was on board and in what condition, is that right?……That's correct, we were still trying to locate Mr Chappell at that stage. Yes. Now did she then leave the area?……Yeah, she later left the area with her daughters and her son in law to have a coffee in Sandy Bay I believe. And during that time did Constable Plunkett appear with something?……I believe Constable Plunkett was door knocking the area and located a red jacket that - So did you see him with it?……Yes. And did you see what he did with it?……He placed it in the - I believe it was the sergeant's - the boot to the sergeant's vehicle. Yeah. And later, it being in the boot of the vehicle, did something else happen in respect of a jacket?…….The jacket was put - shown to the accused and asked if it belonged to her - and several other people. Right. And upon her being asked if it belonged to her what did she say, if anything?…….The jacket didn't belong to her and she'd never seen it before. Thank you. If the witness could be shown please, P09, I think, photo in the second - the second lot of photos in the large folder? Does that appear to be the jacket?…….Yes, it looks very similar, yeah.


Right. Thank you. Now during the showing of this jacket, did recall if Ms Neill-Fraser actually touched it or grabbed it or held it?…….No, she did not she was a fair distance - well she was probably within a couple of metres from the car. Thank you. Did you make some observation of her physically?…….I did I made notes in my police notebook about some strapping and a cut or a bandaid on her finger. Okay. And do you recall now what it was about the strapping that you noticed?…….What sort of strapping? No - well yeah, what sort of strapping, what you exactly noticed about the strapping?…….Oh look, it just appeared to me to be some sort of like crepe strapping wrapped around her wrist, which she continually held. Yes.…….And just a - a standard bandaid on - on her thumb. Okay. And was that on the same side - the same ligament?…….From - yeah look, from memory, I can't - I can't actually recall which hand it was on. Did you - do you recall any conversation concerning the need for the bandaid?…….Yes, she did state to me that she cut her thumb. I did ask for an explanation of how she cut it but I can't recall that. But she did state that her fingerprint may be on torch located on the boat in relation to the bandaid. Right. And so that's part of the bandaid conversation that her - …….Yes. - fingerprint might be on a torch on the boat?…….Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Constable.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Just come back to this bandaid on the thumb, she gave you an explanation and you simply can't recall now what that explanation was?……That's correct. That's what you said?……That's correct. And you didn't put it into your police notebook, whatever the explanation was?……I made note of the bandaid but not the explanation. You know what the question is, answer it, please……No, I didn't. Thank you. Now when you first saw this red jacket was it open, that is in an unrolled position, or was it rolled up?……It was being carried by Constable Plunkett, so it was open. Yes, and was it rolled up by - in Plunkett's hands or was it open as displayed in the photograph?……Well it was bunched up, he was carrying it so it was - I'm sorry?……He was carrying the - it wasn't rolled up, no. Wasn't rolled up, wasn't rolled up in a tight bundle?……No. Thank you. And did he display it in the back of the car in the way in which is shown in the photograph or was it just left as a bundle?……It was opened. As in the photograph?……It was similar, not exactly like it is in the photograph, but similar. All right…….It was placed laying down like a jacket, open jacket. Now you said a little while ago that she had said to you that she was an accomplished sailor, they were your words, weren't they? Correct?……Correct. And what in fact she had said to you, I suggest, is this, that during the time she crewed on the yacht from Queensland to Hobart that she'd gained a very good knowledge of how to operate the yacht, correct?……And had become an accomplished sailor. Well do you say that immediately followed what I just read out?……Beg your pardon?


Do you say that passage I read out to you is correct?……From my statutory declaration? Yes…….Yes. But the words about her saying she'd become an accomplished sailor don't appear anywhere in your statutory declaration, do they?……No, they don't. No. And they don't appear anywhere in your notes either, do they?……No. No. And when did you first remember this particular passage?……What - I don't get what you mean. That she'd said to you that she was an accomplished sailor or had become an accomplished sailor……Again I don't - I recorded a lot of notes that day, not everything that I record - that I jotted down I don't - everything that Ms Fraser said I didn't write down word for word. No, I can accept that and understand that but you did make notes in your notebook and the notes in your notebook I assume together with your recollection formed the basis of your statement, is that a fair comment?……Correct, basis. Yes. And nowhere, either in your notes or in the statement, are the words, "I have become an accomplished sailor", or words to that affect appear do they?……That's correct. Thank you. And the question I want to ask you is this. When did you first remember that those words had been said?……Look, I don't - I don't get what you mean, when did I just remember. I just made a statement and that's what I've - that's what I've explained on that day. But the words "accomplished sailor" I want to suggest to you they were never said and that you have added those words in this courtroom today for the first time as part of your evidence?……Well I'd say it's incorrect.

MR ELLIS SC: There's two propositions there, your Honour, it's very difficult for the witness to answer -


MR GUNSON SC: Well I'll phrase it another way. (Resuming): You've never said this in a courtroom before have you?……Accomplished sailor? Yes……I've never been asked the question, that's why. Well you weren't asked the question you volunteered it in response to Mr Ellis -

MR ELLIS SC: Well (indistinct words) rather than a question.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Did you at any stage prior to giving that evidence tell Mr Ellis that she had volunteered to you the words that she was an accomplished sailor?……No, I did not. So you didn't tell Mr Ellis that when he briefed you?……No. Did he brief you?……He did, a while ago. Yes, how long ago?……Before a preliminary hearing, may be a month ago. Well the preliminary hearing was more than a month ago. Since the preliminary hearing and today have you been either briefed by Mr Ellis or his junior?……No, I have not. So that before the preliminary proceedings before Magistrate Webster he did brief you?……Correct, he did. And you told him - tell him then about he words "accomplished sailor"?.....No, I wasn't asked. And before you came into court today did you think you should go and tell Mr Ellis that these extra words were said?…….I didn't believe it would be relevant. You didn't think it was relevant. See I want to suggest, you see, those words were never used and you've simply made them up to gild the lily?…….That's your opinion, sir. That's what I'm putting to you, do you deny that or do you accept it?…….I do deny that, as I've previously have already said. Now you gave evidence in the preliminary proceedings, didn't you?…….That's correct.


And you never mentioned it down there?…….Well like I already said, I haven't - wasn't asked the question previously. Thank you. Ms Neill-Fraser appeared, I suggest, reasonably distressed on the morning that you first saw down at Sandy Bay - you'd accept that?…….No, I wouldn't. You wouldn't? She appeared very concerned about what was happening, that the yacht was apparently sinking, didn't she?…….I don't believe that she was overly concerned, no. You don't think so - you saw her?…….Yeah. And you seriously say that?…….Yes, I do. Thank you. She was the one who pointed out to you that the dinghy came from the yacht Four Winds?…….Correct. She raised it with you?…….Correct. And the dinghy in fact is a blue and white dinghy, isn't it?…….Correct. Thank you. With the words "Quicksilver" emblazoned along one side?…….Yeah, possibly, I can't a hundred percent ID the dinghy. Well show the witness please - we can save a little time, just have a look at this photograph - just pass it to him please?…….Yeah, it's very similar to the one I saw. Well you say "it's very similar" or it is the one you saw?…….Yes, yes it is the one I saw. That's the one you saw, isn't it - thank you - blue and white - correct?…….Correct. Now in your notebook, and indeed in your statement, you have recorded as - and indeed Mr Ellis led from you, that she told you that somebody had attempted to board - or somebody had boarded the Four Winds some days earlier?…….Correct. Well did you ask any more about that, I mean didn't it seem to you that you've got a sinking yacht, the owner's on the shore and she says, "Well somebody tried to get into the yacht three or four days earlier", didn't you ask some more questions about it?……Not at that stage.


Didn't think it was relevant?……Not at that stage because at that stage it was a missing persons. Yes, it was at that stage a missing person, wasn't it, because you'd been told there was nobody on the boat?……That's correct. And you told Ms Neill-Fraser there was nobody on the boat?……That's correct. Yes, thank you. And she added that somebody had attempted to access some panels. Now did she tell you where the panels were or did you ask her where the panels were?……I don't believe I did, no. Right. And she told you they'd caused some minor damage, that is the intruders had caused some minor damage?……Correct. Thank you. Did she give you any idea as to the extent of that minor damage?……Just that there was panels damaged. Panels damaged. Now again am I right in thinking you didn't ask any questions about that?……No, I didn't. Didn't see it as your role?……Not at that stage, no. No, and you didn't see it as your role at any stage, did you, because it was more a CIB matter, wasn't it?……Well like I just explained, at that stage it was just a missing person so I was recording notes in my notebook and - But you didn't make the link between the two that maybe he's missing, damage on the boat, the boat's been entered some days before, that you couldn't see a link, a possible link between the two?……Yeah, obviously I did see a link. Good, so using all of those police forensic skills didn't you think you ought to have asked some more questions?……Well at that stage I didn't need to ask any further questions. What, because it wasn't part of your brief, as it were?……Well I later conveyed observations and my notes to CIB, who later attended. Yes, and that really was as far as you saw your role, make some notes, tell CIB, let them sort it out, is that a fair comment?……Effectively, yes.


Yes. All right. You said the word 'husband' was used, but I suggest the word 'partner' was used rather than husband?……Possibly that's correct. Yes, thank you. And most definitely in your notes you don't say husband, do you?……I don't believe so. No, and you would accept that partner was the expression?……Yes, correct. Thank you. And you didn't ask her what time she'd last seen him on the yacht the day before did you?……Actually she already previously explained that it was early afternoon. Yes, but early afternoon can be from noon onwards can't it?……Well she stated to me that she'd had lunch with her partner. But people have lunch at all times don't they?……Well I made it an assumption that it was early afternoon after - I'm talking around lunchtime. Well what was your impression - using your criteria are we talking about half past twelve, half past one, 2 o'clock?……Maybe between and 2. Maybe between 12 and 2, but you didn't try and pin her down did you?……There was no need to. I mean surely here you have a missing person and you have a person who says, "I last saw that person early afternoon yesterday", and you didn't ask the critical question like, "What time was that?"?......At that stage there was no - You didn't ask that question did you?……No, I didn't. Thank you. I've no further questions.



P-478 M.B. WILBY

MR ELLIS SC: I call Mark Wilby, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat, detective.

WITNESS: Thank you, your Honour. Yes?

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. Your full name is Mark Barry Wilby?…….Yes, it is. And what's your rank?…….Detective Senior Constable. Thank you. Where are you stationed?…….At Glenorchy. Glenorchy CIB, is that -…….Oh yes. Thank you. And where were you stationed on the 27th of January last year?…….At the same place, Glenorchy CIB. And were you working at about 7:00am?…….Yes, I was, seven to five. Okay. And - sorry, what happened at about ten to eight in the morning?…….Ah we got called, I was working Constable Plunkett and we were called to attend Marieville Esplanade in relation to a missing person and a half sunken yacht. Thank you. And when you arrived there did you liaise with Sergeant Sulman from Hobart Uniform. Was he in charge of the - the police there?…….Yes, he was. And did you go out to the - to the vessel?.......I did. I went out on the marine boat out to the vessel and - And what happened once you got out there?…….I spoke to Constable Stockdale when we first hopped onto the vessel and he handed me a mobile telephone, which was said to be the defendant's mobile phone, which was left there for Mr Chappell to use overnight. What did you do with that?…….I held possession of that and that was later handed to Hobart CIB members late in the afternoon at Constitution Dock.

P-479 M.B. WILBY

Thank you. And who else was on the - on the yacht when you got there?…….Marine officers, they were trying to take - get the water out of the vessel and stop it from sinking. Okay. Do you know what their names were?…….Ah yeah, there was Constable Lawler, Constable Ben Cunningham and there was a third one and off hand I can't recall - Sergeant Pratt was out there as well in another vessel. Thank you. And did you conduct a search of the yacht?…………I did. Initially we had to wait a short time due to the water and I couldn't access all areas of the yacht, but I searched the top part of the yacht and then went down into the cabin, I could search those areas, yes. And did you notice anything in particular?……Yes, on the stepladder there was blood spatter on the stepladder, the three steps, and each step had some blood spots on it. The stepladder had been moved aside by police officers who had to get aboard the yacht and that normally allows you to step down into the cabin. Thank you. If the witness can be shown P3, please, which is the large bundle of photos at the start of the (indistinct word)…….Thank you. And if I can take you to photo 21 to start with……..21, yes. Is that the stairs you were just describing?……Yes, it is. And if you flick to the next - if you flick to the next photo, number and 23, are those photos of those blood marks that you observed?……On the steps, yes. All right. What else did you observe?……I observed a black handled knife to be on the floor of the cabin. I observed a metal ashtray to be underneath the steering wheel and I observe a bracket for an EPIRB but the EPIRB was not present in that bracket, and I also observed a bracket of a fire extinguisher, the fire extinguisher was not in that bracket. Where was the bracket for the fire extinguisher?……That was inside the cabin itself. All right, and did - and were you told that some hoses were cut on the yacht?……Yes I was, by the marine officers, yes.

P-480 M.B. WILBY

And then some forensics officers arrived, is that right?……Yeah, Constable Redburn arrived onto the vessel. All right, and what - what further involvement did you have, what did you do then?……Basically once the forensic examination had taken place I moved across to the police vessel whilst that was done and after that had been completed we arranged for the dive squad to come out and search the water surrounding the vessel Four Winds. And following that we arranged for the vessel to be taken into Constitution Dock. Okay. And so you remained with the vessel and assisted with the towing of it?……Yes, Constable Plunkett and I remained with it and then whilst we were at the dock for several hours in the afternoon. Yes, thank you, your Honour.


P-481 M.B. WILBY

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: you noticed that the EPIRB wasn't on board the boat, that's right?……That's right - oh, it wasn't in the bracket. It wasn't in the bracket. Are you familiar with EPIRBs?……Not very much at all, no. Right. Did you examine the bracket to see whether it had been damaged in anyway at all?……No, I didn't. I didn't notice any - there was no obvious damage that I saw. Yes. Could the witness be shown P3 please and if you'd look at photographs 14, 15 and 16 please - sorry, my mistake P9, have a look at 14, 15 and 16 please, Detective……Yes, number 14, yes. You can see the EPIRB bracket in 14?……Yes, I can. And a close up is 15?……Yes. And then we see at the bottom a little piece with the word 'release' on it near what appears to be a blue handle of some sort when you go back to 14, do you see that? Do you see a blue object directly under the EPIRB bracket?……Not exactly, no - we're on 14? Yeah……Oh, down on the bench there? Yes…..Sorry, yeah, I've got you now. That's all right. Now if you go back to 16 we seem to have a release bracket which I understand comes from the EPIRB bracket was that there when you saw it or - ……I can't recall seeing it. You can't recall - thank you..…….I didn't recall any damage to it that I could recall, no. Thank you. You spoke with the accused onshore for about twenty minutes before you went out to the boat, is that right?…….That's right, yes. And who was she with?…….Her daughter was there and at the time I spoke to her and stood with her, her daughter stood with her basically, and that - that was all, we were sort of just standing there having a general conversation.

P-482 M.B. WILBY

Yes. And what time do you believe you arrived - about seven fifty?…….Ten to eight, yes. Ten to eight - thank you.…….Yes. Were there any other uniform - or sorry, were there any uniformed officers in the area at the time?…….Yes, Sergeant Sulman was at the scene, and there were other uniform officers around the scene as well. All right. …….On - on land I should say not at sea. Yes. And whereabouts was Ms Neill-Fraser standing or waiting when you were talking to her?…….We were on the shore, we were probably five metres away from the water, towards the edge of the water, but - yeah, we were just - we weren't far away, there were other police officers within five metres of us, yeah. Were you talking to her for twenty minutes?…….Yeah, we were talking on and off, it wasn't a full conversation for the whole twenty minutes, we did speak on and off during that time, yes. What sort of questions did you direct to her, if any?…….I didn't direct questions to, no it was just general conversation about her husband, trying to get a bit of background. Yes.…….Yeah. And what he was doing out on the boat?…….Yeah, that sort of thing, yes. And how long he'd been on the boat?…….Yeah. And she told you he'd been there overnight?…….Overnight, that's right. And did she tell you why he'd stayed overnight?…….Not that I - no. Didn't you ask?…….I did ask but I don't - I can't recall what she stated. But she - …….Oh actually, yeah, I think he was working on the boat. Working on the boat.…….Going to do some work on the boat, yes.

P-483 M.B. WILBY

Thank you. And she told you she'd left him with a mobile telephone so that contact could be made between the two of them?…….That's right. And did she tell you that she'd telephoned him at about five past seven in the morning and couldn't get through?…….Yes. Yes. And she gave you a bit of a potted history about the yacht, didn't she, where it had come from?…….Yeah, it - how it was sailed down, yes. Yeah, and she told you that Mr Chappell had suffered a nosebleed on the way down?…….Yes. And he'd been put ashore in Southport?…….I wasn't sure if - where it was, yes. But in any event, he didn't make the balance of the journey, she told you that, didn't she?…….Yes. All right. And she told you that within a couple of days prior they'd been off sailing the boat?…….I'm not sure of that, no. Mm, but there was some discussion about a trip to Bruny Island, wasn't there?…….……There was certainly talk about the boat having been brought down and that, yes. There was also discussion about a trip within days beforehand down to Bruny Island?

MR ELLIS SC: Well my learned friend's now pressing -

WITNESS: I can't recall that, no.

MR ELLIS SC: - for what really is hearsay.

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: I thought there might have been some other point, but this collection of hearsay in my submission is not serving a point.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: It is relevant, your Honour, to attitude, demeanour and things like that which my friend has been stressing as best he can throughout the trial.

P-484 M.B. WILBY


MR ELLIS SC: I don't think I heard my learned friend, I - certainly I didn't understand what he was saying in response except the phrase 'throughout the trial', I'm sorry.

HIS HONOUR: He said that it's relevant to matters such as attitude and demeanour that you've been stressing throughout the trial.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh well he didn't ask a question about attitude and demeanour, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr - well -

MR ELLIS SC: If he did I wouldn't be objecting to hearsay.

HIS HONOUR: Well is there any relevance at all, Mr Gunson, so the information coming from your client as to the vessel having gone to Bruny Island or -

MR GUNSON SC: I think that's about as far as I want to take it, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well - well I won't give a ruling in that case if you're not persisting in the questioning. Go on.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): Did you tell Ms Neill-Fraser why you were going out to the yacht before you departed?……I did state to her, yes, that we had to treat it as a crime scene. And do you recall any response from her when you told her that?……No, she was very - not very emotional, sort of matter of fact about it and didn't really show any emotion in relation to it, no. Thank you. And by this stage there were police officers basically all over the boat, weren't there?……Yes, there was. You've had the - some uniforms out there plus the marine police?……That's true. Thank you. And police were continuing to arrive at Marieville Esplanade to perform one function or another?……That's right. Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions.

P-485 M.B. WILBY





<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your name's James Millar?……Yeah. You live in Sandy Bay?……Yes. And you're retired?……Yeah. If I can take you back to the 27th January last year at 10:30am, can you remember where you were?……Yes, I was down at Marieville Esplanade. I go there pretty well everyday weather permitting to exercise my dogs. Okay. And when you were at the corner of Marieville Esplanade and Margaret Street what did you see?……I was returning - I take a circular route and I was returning from the thing and I noticed a sailing jacket over a fence, over a brick boundary fence. Okay. And can you give a - say if you were standing at Marieville Esplanade and looking at Margaret Street is there water behind you?……Yeah. Which house or which - …..It's the house on the right hand side, it's called 'Camarita'. Thank you. And what did the jacket look?……It was red with gray trimming. I didn't touch it, I didn't think it advisable. All right, so what did you do?……I went back to where the group of policemen and I told an officer I'd found it and led him to it. He then knocked on the door of the house and talked to some Asians who were inside and I continued on my way home. Thank you. If the witness can be shown P9 please, which is the second bundle of photos in the bigger folder.……Yep. Can you have a look at photographs 66 and 67……Yep. Does that look like the jacket?……It looks very much like it, but it was sort of not folded, but it was just draped about this wide over the fence and I didn't look at it to see what brand it was or anything or whether it would fit me. Thanks for that. If I can just have a second, your Honour, thank you. Yes, I have them now. If the witness can please be shown


P11, which is the fourth bundle in the bigger folder. Have you got those photos there?……Yep. Now where you - can you see where you found the jacket in that first photograph?……No. Can you show - can you hold up the photos…….That's the - No, sorry…….That's the shoreline and that's an EPIRB.

HIS HONOUR: If you keep going you'll come to another photo also numbered 1.

MR SHAPIRO: Ah, thank you, your Honour.

WITNESS: Yes, yep, the jacket was on the portion of fence to the right hand side looking at the entrance gate.

MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): Thank you for that. Yes, thank you, I submit the witness.



<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Do I understand your evidence correctly that the jacket was not rolled up, rather it was draped over the fence?…….Yes, it was - about that wide just hanging the fence, which was about - oh about seven hundred mil high. Right. Now when you put your hands to the side I can see what you did -…….Yeah. - but I don't think his Honour or the jury could. So could you just demonstrate again how wide the jacket was?…….Oh, it was about that wide, so you couldn't see the - So it had been folded over?…….No, not so much folded over - it was sort of draped over the fence - yeah. But not very wide?…….No, not very wide. All right. This was about ten thirty you said?…….Yes. And a police officer came along - and before he went and knocked on the door, did you see him do anything with the jacket?…….Just picked it up. He picked it up; and did he carry it to the door with him?…….Yes. All right. And he spoke to some Asian people there you said?…….Yes. One or two?…….I think there were two that came to the door. And then he went off carrying the jacket, did he?…….No, I just continued home I don't know what he - No, that's all right.…….- did then. But you didn't see the police officer leave?…….No. All right. Where did you find these police officers?…….Oh, there were plenty of them around, they were just by the rowing sheds - The one you spoke to - by the rowing sheds?…….Yeah. Thank you. Yes, I've no further, questions.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro.

MR SHAPIRO: Nothing, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, Mr Millar, you're free to go.

WITNESS: Thank you.


P-490 A.M. HONG


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Is your full name is Au Ming Hong?……Yes. And you're a student?……Yes, I'm a student. And you live in Sandy Bay?……Yes. Thank you. And in January - January last year did you live in Margaret Street, Sandy Bay?……Yes. Thank you. If the witness can please be shown the second photograph number 1 from P11. Is that where you lived?……Yes. Thank you. Now on the morning of the 27th January 2009 did you speak to a police officer?……Yes. And did he show you something?……He showed a jacket to me. Okay. And had you seen that jacket before?……No, I didn't. Okay. And if the witness can please be shown P9 -

HIS HONOUR: I think Ms Fletcher is showing photograph 66 and .

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you. (Resuming): Is that - can you just hold up the photo that you've got so I can see…..Yes. Thank you. Is that the jacket that you were shown?……Yes, this one. And what time did you come home to Margaret Street the previous day?……Around 6:00pm in Australia Day. On Australia Day, okay. And did - when you came home did you see that jacket?……No, I didn't see. You didn't see it. Thank you.


P-491 A.M. HONG

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: You got home at 6 o'clock and you didn't see the jacket on the fence then, that's right?……I came home at 6 o'clock. o'clock?……Yeah, I didn't see any jacket. And didn't see any jacket. When did you first see the jacket the next day, when the policeman came to the door or earlier?……Earlier. Earlier. And what time did you first see it, approximately?……One, eleven o'clock in the morning. At what time?……Eleven. Eleven?……That one. No, the policeman came to your house at about half past ten…….No, I've forgotten what time. All right. How long before the policeman came to your house did you see the jacket?……Five minutes. About five minutes, and you went and picked it up, didn't you?……Yeah, I did. Yes, and when you first saw it how did it look to you, was it lying across the fence or was it rolled up or what?……Just rolled up. Rolled up. Can you describe how it was rolled up?……Just not like - well up like a ball or something. Looked like a ball?……Yeah. And it was sitting on top of the fence?……Yeah. All right, and you put it back on the fence?……Yes. And you went back inside?……Yeah. And sometime later the policeman came to the door and he was holding the jacket, is that right?……Yes. Thank you. But you are quite sure when you first saw it it was rolled up?……Yes.

P-492 A.M. HONG

Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions.





<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your name's Todd Plunkett?……Yes, it is. And what's your rank?……I'm a Constable. Where are you stationed?……Currently stationed at Claremont Station. Thank you. And where were you stationed on 27th January last year?……I was attached to Glenorchy CIB, performing Crime Response Unit duties. And where did you go at 8:00 in the morning on that day?………….Marieville Esplanade in Sandy Bay. And what did you observe when you got there?…….I observed a - a yacht, your Honour, approximately two hundred metres out from the shore at that location, and that yacht was partially submerged. And did you see anything else?…….There was a small grey tender, your Honour, in front of the boat house there just tied to the rocks. Thank you. And - and - all right, and approximately at 10:10am were you approached by someone?…….I was approached by Mr Jim Millar. And what did he say to you?…….Your Honour, he informed me of a red jacket hanging over a fence in the corner of Margaret Street and Marieville Esplanade. Thank you. And having been informed that there was a jacket what did you do?…….I went and spoke to the residents, or the resident at that location, and asked - Well did - sorry- did you locate this jacket?…….Yes, I did, yes - sorry. Okay. And if I can just take you to the photographs, P09, photograph 67, is that a photo of the jacket?…….Yes, it is, your Honour. Thank you. And - and so what did you do once you'd located that jacket?…….I spoke to the resident there just to ensure that it wasn't his and to see if he - if he'd seen it before.


Do you know what his name was?…….I wouldn't be able to pronounce the first name, I think it was Mr Hong. Okay. Thank you. And what did he have to tell you about the jacket?…….He said it was 5 n't there the previous night but he couldn't be sure of the time. Okay. And what did you do with the jacket?…….I, using gloves, I searched that jacket for any identification but there was only a two dollar coin in one of the front pockets, and I took that jacket back to Sergeant Sulman's police car and placed it in the boot of that car - And if the witness can be shown the jacket. All right, perhaps - sorry, I'll have that back, sorry about that. All right, so where did you place the jacket, I think you might have told me already?……In the boot of that vehicle on a brown paper bag not unlike that one. And did you see a Ms Neill-Fraser there?……Yes, I did. And did she look at the jacket?……Yes. And what did she have to say about it?……That it wasn't her jacket. Thank you. What happened to the jacket after that?……That was locked in the boot of Sergeant Sulman's vehicle. I didn't see the jacket again until now. Okay. And what - what further involvement did you have with this matter?……I then guarded the vessel at the Hobart Waterfront until Sergeant Conroy arrived. Thank you. Thank you, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Can we just deal with the question of you guarding the vessel. It was taken from Marieville Esplanade around to Constitution Dock and tied up there wasn't it?……That's correct. And because it was believed to be a possible crime scene it was important that people not associated with the investigation stay off the vessel?……That's correct. And that's very much standard police procedure, isn't it, whether it be a house or street scene or a boat?……Yes, that's correct. And I think you said on a previous occasion you stood guard on the vessel until about 5 o'clock?……Correct. And you were relieved of your guard duties about 5 o'clock by Detective Sergeant Conroy, is that right?……That's correct. He was then in charge of the investigation?……Yes, he was. And it was up to him from that point onwards to ensure the safety of the scene, is that correct?……Correct. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not that vehicle was under police guard all night?……I wouldn't know, your Honour. It would be usual practice for it to stay under guard until it was returned to ownership of the owners?……Yes, usually. That would be usual. Thank you. Now you carried out a general door-knock along Marieville Esplanade didn't you?……That's correct, yes. Along with another - well along with a number of other police officers?……Yes, that's right. And had you door-knocked along that part of Marieville Esplanade where you picked up the jacket?……I hadn't gone that far, no. Right. Had that area been previously checked by police officers to your knowledge, that is door-knocked?……Not to my knowledge, no. Right. You said you saw a small grey inflatable tender tied to the rocks, have a look at these two photographs, number 70 and 71, is


that blue and white tender with an outboard engine on it with the words 'Quicksilver' on the side the tender to which you refer when you say a grey tender?……Yes, that's the one, your Honour. Thank you. Now when you brought this jacket back to Sergeant Sulman's police vehicle and placed it in the rear was Ms Neill-Fraser nearby or was she standing at the vehicle or was she simply called across to have a look at it?……She wasn't there at that time, your Honour. Right. Where was she then?……I believe she'd gone home for a cup of tea. Right. And she came back?……Yes, that's correct. And I think you said in your evidence - I withdraw that - you've previously said, "I was present when Fraser" as you've referred to her, "glanced at the jacket and said that it was not hers"?…….That's correct. She certainly wasn't given the opportunity to pick it up and look at it closely and examine it, was she?…….No, she wasn't. She was not given the opportunity to go through pockets or anything?…….No. Just glanced at it?…….That's correct. Thank you. I've no further questions.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Nothing in re-examination, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, you're free to go.




HIS HONOUR: Take a seat.

WITNESS: Thank you, sir.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr Sulman, you're Andrew Kenneth Sulman?…….Yes. You're now with the Hobart Criminal Investigation Branch?…….Bellerive. Bellerive - sorry. In January last year were you with Hobart Uniform?…….Yes. And what rank did you hold?…….Acting sergeant. Thank you. On the 27th of January 2009 did you go somewhere?…….Yes, I went to the Sandy Bay Rowing Club car park. Yes. And did Constable Plunkett bring you something?…….Constable Plunkett brought me a red jacket and placed it in the boot of my police car. Right. I'll show you photograph 67 - or could you be shown photograph 67 please? Does that appear to be the jacket?…….Yes. Thank you. So he - Constable Plunkett placed it in the rear of your car?…….Yes. Was there anything else connected with this case in that - rear of that car?……No. Now when you say the rear you mean the boot?……Boot. Right. And was it shown to the accused, Susan Neill- Fraser?……Yes. And was her response invited to it or did she say something in response to being shown it?……She indicated that that jacket did not come from the yacht, Four Winds. Right. Did you retain the jacket?……Yes.


Was it later given to Constable Elphinstone?……That's correct. If it please, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Before you showed it to Ms Neill-Fraser you showed it to a number of members of the family, didn't you?……That's correct. Trying to ascertain whether they recognised it at all?……Yes. What time do you think this occurred?……This was during the morning. What time?……I believe it was about eight or nine o'clock. Eight or nine o'clock. Well we've had some evidence earlier that the jacket wasn't found 'til about half past ten, does that help you?……It was shown to the accused just after she came back from - she went away for about half an hour and she told me that she was going to get a cup of coffee and it was shown to her after that. So your evidence about eight or nine o'clock is obviously wrong if there's evidence in this Court it was found at half past ten?……Yes. Right. So what time do you think it was then, doing the best you can, that you showed it to her, or do you merely rely on the fact that it was after she came back from having a cup of tea or coffee or something?……That's exactly when it happened, after she'd been away with family and came back. Thank you very much. And she said, according to you, in response it was not from the yacht, is that right?……Yes. She didn't say, "It's not mine"?.......No. Right, and it was not from the yacht. Is Constable Plunkett present at that time?……Yes. He is. And basically she just glanced at it, didn't she?……Yes. She wasn't given the opportunity to pick it up?……No. Handle it, obviously, for forensic reasons?……Had she wanted to pick it up she probably - I wouldn't have stopped her at that point, she simply looked at it and said it's not from the yacht. Glanced at it?……Yes.


Yes, thank you. Yes, I have no further questions, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: We've still got a couple of minutes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, yes, call another witness.

MR ELLIS SC: I don't think we've got any more witnesses, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Oh well you've done well, you've called fourteen today. All right, the jury can make their affirmation and the Court will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. THE JURY AFFIRMED OUT

<THE COURT ADJOURNED Table of Contents


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 501

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 506

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: .................................................. 513


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 514

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 524

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: .................................................. 537


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 539

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 546

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 555


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ..................................................... 556

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 561


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ..................................................... 565

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 567


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 568

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 571

<REXN - MR SHAPIRO: ................................................... 575


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 576

<ASHLEY JOHN KENT CALLED AND SWORN .................. 578

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 578

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 580


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 581

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 587


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: ..................................................... 588

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 591


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 592

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 595

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 597 Exhibit List


EXHIBIT #P59 - DVD OF INTERVIEW BETWEEN FELICITY OGILVIE AND ACCUSED .............................................. 594



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson - Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I do know who you are - yes?

MR ELLIS SC: (indistinct words) I call Peter Lorraine, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes.

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Lorraine, you're Peter Derek Lorraine?…….Yes, I am. And you are a manager with the Health Department?…….That's correct. The Department of Health. You live at - well it might be the top - it might be bottom, but 1 Collins Street, don't you?…….Use to live there, have moved since. Ah right, and were you living there at Australia Day last year?…….I was. And which end of Collins Street is that?…….It's the far end, the end nearest - Furthest from us -…….- the - yeah. - here today - okay. And when you lived there did you have a regular walking loop that you would take?…….I did.


How did that go?…….I use to walk out of 1 Collins Street, head down to the harbour, walk around the coast as much as I could to get around to the particular jetty around at Battery Point, and then I used to go on a loop back along some of the roads back to 1 Collins Street. Right. And the jetty that you refer to do you know what is called or where the street or lane that it's off is called?……I think it's Derwent Lane and it's a concrete jetty and there's a little park to the left of it. Okay. And was it your habit to go to the end of the jetty?……Not normally, no, normally it was just my turnaround point. On this particular day the weather was very turbulent so it was a place to sit and watch activity. Okay. So you did take that walk on that day. Did you have some other business to attend to also that day?……I did, I was looking at a rental unit in Salamanca - Yes…….- and then I did some shopping on the way home. Okay. Did you have a particular time for the appointment to look at the unit?……I did, I think it was four thirty. Right. And did that take long to look at that?……Not that long, no, probably maybe fifteen, twenty minutes. Okay, and that was in Salamanca Mews, wasn't it?……That's correct. So then you went and your next stop was Derwent Lane, was it?……Correct. Okay. And did you walk to the end of the jetty?……I did. Okay. And you were starting to tell us about the day, what sort of a day was it?……Well it was the wildest day I'd seen in sort of the trips I'd made down there, so it was a very strong wind, the waves were - were - I don't know whether you'd describe them as big but they were short and very sharp, so - Choppy?……Very choppy, yes, and the wind was sufficiently strong to make it interesting out on the ocean in terms of whitecaps - Mm…….- and things and boats were bouncing. Okay. And was your attention drawn to a particular boat?……It was.


What drew your attention to it?……It was just sort of an ocean going looking boat that I hadn't seen before in the area and what particularly struck my attention was there appeared to be an elderly man just on the back of it and so I was watching him as the boat bounced up and down and - and it was an interesting spectacle. What made it so interesting?……Just - I suppose I've always had a love of the sea and I suppose it was just the spectacle of someone being on a boat in such turbulent water and then you wonder why someone would choose to be on a moored boat in such a turbulent sea and it would've been an unpleasant experience, I imagine, on the boat because it was literally lifting in and out of the water significantly. Right. Now this man, you described him as elderly, what did you - what do you base that on?……Just he appeared elderly, reasonably tall, a little bit stopped, but as I say he was bending over and pottering around the back, moving around reasonably slowly. He just looked like an old seafarer. And do you remember the clothes that the old seafarer was wearing?……They looked like those sort of I guess faded sort of what I'd call a shirt and it looked like he was in shorts but again it was very very windy, very blustery, and so it was hard to get an absolutely clear impression. Yeah. Was it overcast as well, do you recall?……A little bit overcast, I'd say very - very strong winds so it appeared a bit overcast and a bit of cloud about. Yeah. Now the boat itself do you remember if it had one or more masts?……Two masts is my recollection. Thank you. And did it have anything apparently attached to it or tied to it?……Yes, the back of the boat it looked to me like there was a very small dinghy tied close up to the back of the boat. Yeah. And how was that faring?……Well it looked terribly small and it looked as though it was secured very close to the back of the boat so it wasn't out on a long line. Difficult to make out the shape because the boat was really up and down in the water so it looked very small. Yeah. Right. Was the back or the side or the front of the boat facing you?……So the big boat at the back of it was facing me and then the dinghy was at the back of it.


Right. All right. Now I wonder if Mr Lorraine could be shown P40 please, the second photos last in the big folder taken by Constable Needham. Now photo 11 please, Mr Lorraine, does that appear to be taken from Derwent Jetty?……It certainly looks like it, yes. Yeah. And I know there's an arrow put on there, I think it is, and you probably - does that arrow point to where the boat was that you observed with the man on it?…….Yes, it certainly does, as I say it looks very different on a still day - Oh yeah.…….- and this photo is just of a very calm placid ocean. Okay. Yes. And number 12, it seems to be the same boat as - is that familiar?…….Yes. Or is it like the boat? Yeah. 13 is a little bit of a different view but I think - I'm just going to check that - I think on 14 we're back to - back to Derwent Lane?…….Yes, I'm not sure about 13 but - No.…….- 14. Yeah, is that right, back to Derwent -…….Yeah, that's it. - Lane Jetty?…….Yeah, and the only difference in this picture was there was a very big silver commercial catamaran on that second - the thing - the other jetty, the wooden jetty. Yeah, on the day you saw it?……Yeah. And then another view at 15? That's the sort of back on view, is it, that you would have had that day?…….Yes. Mr Lorraine - thank you - you mentioned that you were thirty, it wasn't - it didn't take you very long, you went to there on your walk, about what time therefore was it that you were at Derwent Lane?…….Probably around five o'clock'ish. Around five - thank you. And when you - when you left there, where did you go, do you remember?…….Yes, I headed back up the hill, which is reasonably steep, and then down - I don't know the name of the road but it's got like a public garden on it, or a garden that's looked after by people, it's a narrow street.


Yeah.…….Down there until the end of that road and then cut back down to the water and then walked along the water's edge and around the CSRI building and then back into - into the shop at Salamanca. Right. And when you mentioned a shop, did you go to the Salamanca Fruit Market?…….I did. Did you buy something?…….I did. Were you given a receipt?…….I was. Did it show a time?…….It did. What was that?…….I think it was about five thirty, I'm not absolutely sure. Thank you, Mr Lorraine.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Mr Lorraine, you have previously said to the police, have you not, that you would have left the apartment in Salamanca Mews at around 4:30 p.m. and from there continued your walk?……That could be correct, yes. As I say, it's a long time ago so I'm doing this from memory. I just want you to have a look at this document, please. Just read it to yourself, say nothing about it. You only need read the front page. When you're finished tell me you've finished and I'll ask you some further questions…….Yes. Have you read that page?……Yep. Could I have that back, please. Thank you. You've previously said to the police that you left the apartment as Salamanca Mews at about :30 p.m.?......That's correct. Yes, and from there you would've walked along Salamanca Place to Castray Esplanade, is that correct?……Along - I'm not sure what you call Castray Esplanade. Well you tell me the route you took from Salamanca Mews - …….Yep, so across to the industrial sheds, down the side of the industrial shed and then around the - What do you call the industrial shed?……It's where they have the Taste, the big - All right, thank you. Princes Wharf?……Princes Wharf, yep. Thank you, so you walked along parallel to Princes Wharf, correct?……Yes. And you would've got then to CSIRP buildings, correct?……Yep, that's correct, and what I recall there is the University have put a thing at the end of the jetty there that made noises like a whale so that I recall going out on that little bit to have a look before continuing past the science building. Yes, that was part of the festival in January, and then to get to Derwent Lane did you go round into Hampden Road and down Trumpeter Street past the Shipwright Arms Hotel or did you walk around through Clarke Avenue?……If you mean by Clarke Avenue, is this the one that has the very pretty sort of garden that's maintained, it's a very narrow street, that's the one that I used to walk down - I don't know the name of the street.


That's the - with the garden in the middle?…….In the middle. Yes, Marine Terrace?…….Yeah. So you walked along Marine Terrace and then turned down into Derwent Lane?…….Correct. I know understand the route you're talking about. All right. So from Salamanca Mews to there would be fifteen, twenty minutes?…….Yeah. Particularly with the interludes you had looking at the instrument on the end of the wharf?…….Yeah. That consisted of a series of flutes and things, didn't it?…….I'm not sure exactly what it was, but the noise was fascinating. And wailing noise?…….Well that's what it sounded like, yeah. Yes.…….It was very loud because of the wind. Because of the wind, yes.…….And the waves. All right. So you get - went down to Derwent Lane, you went right out onto the end of the jetty and stood in these reasonably inclement conditions and had a bit of a look around at the yachts and things - is that right?…….That's correct. All right. And you saw this yacht you've described - it had two masts?…….Correct. But it was bow onto you, so you were fairly limited in -…….Stern onto me. Sorry, stern onto you?…….Yeah. And it was - you were fairly limited in what you could see going onboard the yacht - you didn't ever see it in side - side profile, did you?…….No, it was stern on. And from where you were standing looking at it, how far away was it, do you think?…….Well it's been estimated at eighty metres; as I say it was very turbulent so - You say "it's been estimated" by whom was it estimated?…….A policeman took me back to the site and -


Right. …….- they did ask me when I originally did the - did the statement and I estimated it myself at eighty metres. But it was approximate because I had no way of measuring the distance. And obviously in - in the conditions it's very difficult to measure distance. All right. It could have been further away than eighty metres, couldn't it?…….It could possibly have been, yes. Yes.…….I mean it would have been somewhere in that range but - Right. Can the witness be shown P01 please? Now what we've got here is an aerial photograph that was taken apparently in December7, so I'm not asking you to look at a white thing and tell me with any particular boat, does the copy you have show Derwent Lane marked?……It does. And if you look at that we then - as we look at it to the right of where we see the words 'Derwent Lane' and we see the concrete jetty to which you've referred?……Correct. And you were right out on the end of that?……That's correct. Can you point to where you believe the yacht that you saw was moored?……It's a bit to know the scale of this map but from where I was on the jetty - The scale is on the bottom if you look…..Sort of it was almost - from my perspective it was just off - if you took a straight line from the jetty straight out then the stern of the boat was more or less facing me although on occasions because of the pitching and the tossing of the boat I could also see occasionally the bowline, so the front line of the boat. Now can you put a mark please on that photograph where you say you saw a boat, put 'L' for Lorraine would you, and perhaps we might use another copy, a smaller version, same picture different size? Just take your time……I put a little 'L'. A little 'L' please. And if you could pass that to me please. If you would pass that to his Honour and then perhaps Mr Ellis and the jury.


HIS HONOUR: All right. Well the document that's being marked is exhibit P54 and the witness has put an 'L' sideways as one holds the map upright near to the Derwent Lane Jetty. That can be shown to Mr Ellis and the jury.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): So the position you put that boat in is in a direct line out from the public jetty at Derwent Lane?……That's correct. Right, thank you. And what colour was the yacht?……It had - it looked as though it had a bit of wood and it was sort of a whitish colour. A whitish colour. When you say it looked like it had a bit of wood in it, what do you mean wood, where was it?……Just, I suppose, from looking at the boat and by describing it as sort of an ocean going boat, as I say, very blustery conditions but it was sort of white in colour but it was - looked reasonably old, so the - I suppose from a (indistinct word) it looked as though it had some wood around bits of it and as well as some other metal and things. Do you remember whether the masts were wood or metal?……Not specifically, no. I just want to get you to concentrate on the wood, please. You said wood around it, whereabouts was the wood, was the wood in the hull or on the -……No, it would've been more on - sort of on the deck. It appeared to be a wooden deck, did it?……Not necessarily, I couldn't see the deck. No…….Like I suppose the - whether you call it the superstructure or from memory it looked as though it had some wood on the - sort of the cabin bit. Well when you say "on the cabin bit" do you sort of mean a wood trim of some form?…….Could have been, yeah. You're not suggesting that the cabin was made of wood, for instance?…….No. Right. And do you remember the boat being all white?…….Pretty much, as I say, a lot time has passed since but my recollection is of a - an older sailing boat that didn't look spectacular it just looked interesting. Right. And there was a tender of some form attached to the rear - that's right?…….That's what I saw.


Yes. And you said previously to the police, I suggest, "I'm unsure what type of tender it was, inflatable of solid construction." Now do you mean inflatable or solid construction?…….I think what I said was that I could see the - something on the back of the boat but I was unable to make out whether it was a - an inflatable dinghy or tender- Yes.…….- or a aluminium or wood dinghy. At the time I described it as - I grew up in the UK - as a like a cockle dinghy, which is like a small dinghy that sailing boats use to get to and from the shore. Right. So you couldn't determine whether the dinghy you saw was inflatable or made of aluminium or whether it was made of wood?…….No. And the reason I couldn't was because the boat was pitching violently in the water at the front and at the back. You mean the dinghy or the main boat?…….Boat. The yacht?…….Yeah. Yes.…….And the yacht was pitching violently in the water and the dinghy appeared to be very closely secured to the back of the back so it wasn't like free sort of off the back of the boat. That's all right. But in any event, the dinghy you saw or tender, whatever word we use interchangeably, was somewhat dark in colour?…….That's my recollection and - and very small. Very small and very dark?…….I don't know about very dark. As I say hard to make out but it didn't stand out. But it was dark?……It was, yeah. Thank you. And would it be fair to say this that you really on that day didn't pay a great deal of attention to the dinghy?……No, more interested in the sailing boat and I suppose the gentleman that was on board. Yes. And how long did you observe him pottering him around at the rear of the boat for?……Probably about ten minutes. Right. And did you see what he was doing? Was he sort of doing things with ropes for instance or did he appear to be popping in and out of the cabin or what?……Couldn't make it out. He was bending over in the - in the back of the boat, or the stern of the boat, but I couldn't really make out what he was doing.


Yes. And you didn't see an outboard on the back of this tender did you?……No, I couldn't see an outboard. Right, thank you. And if there had been an outboard there that's the sort of thing that you would remember isn't it?……It is, yeah. Yes. In fact you were interviewed by the police on the 31s t January and you didn't tell them at that time there was any outboard on board?……That's correct. Yes. And it is your best belief today that there was no outboard?……Well I guess the point I made is I couldn't see an outboard. You couldn't see one?……No. Yes, thank you. But - and the board was stern on to you and you had a reasonably good view of the dinghy at the back of the boat, is that right?……A reasonably good view of the bigger boat a poor view of the dinghy. As I say you have to imagine the water was as turbulent as I've ever seen it so the boat was pitching almost violently in the water so that as it slapped up and down there was spray and things so it was difficult to get an image, a clear image, of something that was small. Thank you. You said the boat was on a mooring could you see the mooring buoy to which it was attached or are you merely assuming it was on a mooring and not at anchor?……No, I'm making that as an assumption. All I could see was the - a very tight and what looked like a short line off the front of the boat on occasion and it looked short which was why I guess the boat was pitching so - so dramatically. All right. So at the end of the day the position is this. That the boat was either anchored or moored and you can't say which?……That's correct. Thank you. And you saw this or watched this for about ten minutes before retracing your steps, is that right?……That's correct. Thank you. On a previous occasion you were asked about the colour of this yacht, you said:


It sort of looked a woody - And you stopped and moved onto slightly something else and you were asked Also: Did it appear to be painted or varnished? And you said: I think it may have been, like looking at it, because the wood would have been attractive, so from recollection it looked like there may have been some wood on the boat just making it look older, but I would've thought the hull was painted. Now I'm sorry to come back to this wood again, but I just want to make quite sure in my own mind what you're talking about is some basic wooden trimmings on the boat, is that right?……Correct. Yes, thank you. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Mr Lorraine, when you made your 'L' on the map as invited by Mr Gunson was it your intention to depict a different position of the boat than the one seen in the photographs or the same, the photographs that I showed you earlier?……Oh sorry, not this one. No, not necessarily, this is just - this is a different type of picture to the one we looked at earlier. No, never mind that. Now I showed you photographs?……Yep. Saw a boat there that, yeah, I understood you said it was in the same position as the boat you saw?……Yes. And when you made your 'L' on the map was it your intention to describe a different position or the same position?……No, no, well it was my intention to describe the same position. Thank you. As you saw in the photographs that I showed you?……Yes. Thank you, Mr Lorraine. Nothing further, thank you, your Honour.




HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes?

P-514 J. A. McKINNON

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Mr McKinnon, you're James Athol McKinnon?…….Yes. You live in Burpengary - am I pronouncing that right -…….Yes. - in Queensland? And you're a marine mechanic?…….Yes. In - well perhaps just tell us what - what your business involves as a marine mechanic, what sort of things you do?…….Oh we - we repair marine engines in boats. Yeah.…….And - yeah. And all sorts of boats or -…….Yes. - all sorts and sizes?…….Pretty much power boats and sailing vessels. Mm hm. For the recreational boats?…….Recreational, yes. And did you do an inspection of a vessel, Four Winds, in8?…….Yes, I did. And you were commissioned to do that?…….Susan Neill-Fraser and Bob Chappell. Do you remember which month you did it in?…….No, I don't, no. No - was it late in the year?…….It was late, yeah, it was in the year, yes, but I don't exactly remember which month. And you did an inspection and made a report, I presume, as a result of that?…….Yes, I did. What was the general nature of the report, what did you tell them was the state of things?…….Oh just general wear and tear in service items. Yeah.…….And it just needed some repair work in order to bring it up to a safe standard. Did you give an estimate of how much might be - might be done?……We did.

P-515 J. A. McKINNON

What was that?……Oh, that varied but it was at the time approximately about the eight thousand dollar mark. Were you asked to commence that?……Yes, I was. And did you?……Yes. Where did you do that, that work - well to start with where did you do that work?……We proceeded the work at Scarborough Marina in a mooring tied up on the dock. Is that where you usually do your work or you do them - …..We do them in most marinas on the north side of Brisbane. Right. How long did that process take at Scarborough Marina?……Scarborough's approximately eight - eight to ten weeks. And in that did you find more things that needed doing?……We did, yes. Yeah……Just minor items. Okay. Did you have cause one day to call Sue Neill-Fraser about what you thought was an entry to the boat?……Yes, I did. And what caused you to call her?……I just had reason to believe that someone had being entering the vessel after I had finished my work everyday, or some days. Yeah…..I wasn't entirely sure at that time it just - there were some minor things that were changed that were different to how I left them. Right. And did you have any suspicion as to who it was?……No, I didn't, no. At the time I suspected it may have been the boat broker coming down to check the vessel everyday or - that was my initial reaction but we soon ruled that out. Okay. And was there any particular matter that caused you to call her?……Oh, one day I actually noticed the electrical panel had been removed. I don't think I'd noticed it previously because later on we discovered that an electrician that worked on the vessel he'd removed it so - Yeah, but on the day - on the day you found it had been removed did you think that that was something more than just someone's been on the - …..I did, I did at the time, yes.

P-516 J. A. McKINNON

Okay. And did you call Ms Neill-Fraser to say that it seems the electrical panel has been removed?……I - yes, I did. And you found out that that was - later that that was perfectly lawful, it was an electrician that she'd actually assigned to do work?……I did, yes. And his name was - do you remember his name?……Chris Geddies. Right. And did you relay that finding to Ms Neill-Fraser?……I did, yes. Okay. So there was - how many other times did you get the impression someone had been on board or in it - or in the boat?……Probably - I classified it as several times, probably two to three times. Okay. But nothing like panels removed or any obvious -…….No, there was nothing else, it was just minor things like my toolbox had been relocated. Yep, and that's how you reported it to Ms Neill-Fraser, is it?……Yes. On the time you rang about the panel being - having apparently being removed I want to read you a description of how Ms Neill-Fraser described your call and find your reaction to it, 372: He rang up and he sounded really rattled. He said, "Look, I think I get the feel" - well first off he said, "Are you getting someone to watch me", and he thought it was Jeff Rowe that I was asking him to watch him to see how many hours he worked and - because he said, "I'm absolutely certain somebody's watching me". To be absolutely honest with you I thought the heat had got to him because he sounded frantic and that morning he said he got on the boat and someone had been on there and I said, "Well has it been broken into", thinking of damage, and he said, "No, someone with a key and they've pulled off panels, they've undone the electrical circuits", and I thought well it's another tradesman, you know, and I told him and he said, "No, it's not, someone's been on here looking for something", and he said, "I've never worked on a boat that's made me feel so nervous", and he went on about the heat and heaviness.

P-517 J. A. McKINNON

Now is that an accurate description of your call, that you were rattled and frantic and -…….I was very concerned but not frantic, no. Did you assert that electrical circuits had been undone?……It was only the electrical panel was removed. Did Ms Neill-Fraser say to you, "It's another tradesman", did she say, "It's someone - must be the electrician I've got to work on there"?........I don't recall. That was something you relayed to her later, having found it out, wasn't it?…….Yes, I - I did pass that on, yes. Perhaps I'll continue - and then he said, "Penny was driving him made because she kept coming down and criticising the boat"?…….She did. She did, who was Penny?…….Ah, Penny was the female boat broker - Yeah.…….- whose business resided in Scarborough Marina, which was very close to where the boat was moored. I see. Apparently she hadn't got the business of selling that boat?…….Yeah, apparently. And she made plain her - she had views of the boat?…….She was just concerned that yeah, she didn't get a fair chance at selling the vessel. Right. And you understood that she had it for sale at some stage, do you?…….I didn't, no. Right. Soon following that was something done in respect to the location of the boat?…….Yes, I - I asked Sue whether I could relocate the vessel to another marina. Yeah.…….Just to make things a bit clearer. We shifted the vessel to the Newport Marina and proceeded work on the boat there. All right. And was there any - ever any other sign of anyone coming on or moving the ropes or anything?…….No, not after that, there was nothing more.

P-518 J. A. McKINNON

Tell me, is it - is it right that at Scarborough it was moored alongside someone who was actually living on the boat - …….Yes. - on their boat next -…….Yes, it was. - alongside? Can you recall a large fire extinguisher on the boat?…….Yes. On Four Winds - where was that located?.......It was located in the saloon area when I seen it. And I take it, it was secured?…….No, it wasn't secured at the time, it was just loose. All right. And how much would it weigh?…….Approximately ten to fifteen kilograms. Right. And did you put it somewhere before the boat sailed away?…….I - my belief was I'd placed it in the laundry area. All right. When was your work and - and there were other subcontractors, I think, weren't there -…….There was. - working - when was your work done?……I don't understand the question, sorry. No, okay. When was it finished, when was it ready to go?……When it was finished, what month or - Yeah…..Yeah, I'm not sure of the - Okay. Was it close to Christmas?……It was around Christmas time but I don't remember the date, no. Now it seems like most of your communication was with Sue Neill- Fraser, is that right?……Yes. Not with the Bob Chappell?……No. In fact when did you meet him, if you did?……I first met Bob when they come up to have a look at the vessel prior to its departure, they

P-519 J. A. McKINNON

came up twice I believe. The first time was to sort of meet everybody and see how work was progressing. Yeah. And did you see them, Sue Neill-Fraser and Bob Chappell, together?……I have seen them together, yes. How did they strike you as a couple?

MR GUNSON SC: I object to the question, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: It's from an observation, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, can the jury be asked to go to the jury room and the witness to wait outside and I'll address your Honour as to the form of my objection.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, would you go the jury room please.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


MR GUNSON SC: With due respect to my learned friend the question was inelegantly phrased, "How did they seem as a couple", and it invites an inelegant answer. The witness can say what he saw or observed or heard but to ask him to give an opinion as to brief contact with them, "How did they seem as a couple", isn't particularly helpful and invites the sort of answer it probably deserves which is not an admissible answer.


MR ELLIS SC: I expect he'll say that they seemed more like friends than an intimate couple and that observation will be one that can then be fleshed out as to what made it seem that in terms of I think - well I'm thinking of the opinion section in the Evidence Act with the exception, thirty - but yeah, 78B, your Honour, of the Act. The ground of objection seems to be elegance or lack thereof.

HIS HONOUR: Well Mr Gunson, the proof contains an assertion that they seemed like friends only and not a couple, he went on to say: They had different names and did not appear an intimate couple. I would describe Sue as very dominant and never stops talking to listen and very friendly. So it seems to me that's the information that Mr - or the evidence that Mr Ellis wants to elicit, what do you say in reply?

MR GUNSON SC: I say that his reliance on s78 reinforces the submission that I've made to you because subparagraph (a) of s78 says: The opinion must be based on what the person saw, heard or otherwise perceived about a matter or event and the evidence of the opinion is necessary to contain an adequate account or understanding of a person's perception of a matter. Now all we've got is him just saying, "I saw them", surprising, shock, horror, "they had different names", and I use that as part of my foundation or basis for the belief he's expressed, and that's absurd, with the greatest of respect in this day and age. I mean people don't necessarily walk around the street, who have been


together for a long time, arm in arm, people display different manners towards each other in public all the time.

HIS HONOUR: Well that's true, but this is a case where the way in which the - your client and Mr Chappell behaved towards one another has become relevant and a lot of pieces of evidence may be of little or no value, but the way in which they behaved towards one another is relevant. If there is anything wrong with the question it is that it - it's not expressly limited to what the - what the witness saw, heard or otherwise perceived.

MR GUNSON SC: That was the foundation of my objection in the form the question was asked.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. All right. Well - well technically you're right, the witness will have to - if the witness is to be asked how they seemed as a couple or how they struck him as a couple, the question will have to be limited to what he saw, heard or otherwise perceived.

MR ELLIS SC: So I'd ask; 'From what you saw, heard or otherwise perceived, how did they strike you as a couple?'


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, bring the jury back and bring the witness back.



P-522 J. A. McKINNON


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. (Resuming): I was asking about Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell, Mr McKinnon; so from what you saw, heard or perceived, how did they strike you as a couple?…….Yeah not - not intimate, just - just friends, I suppose. And in terms of the apparent, and I only say apparent, dominance of one over the other, or dominance in interaction with, say, you?…….Yeah, Susan was definitely the dominant one of the two. Now Mr Chappell, how would you describe his apparent health and how in particular he was - appeared to be on board? I know you weren't at sea when you saw him but how did he appear to be get around?……He was very slow and very fragile, very frail, yeah. What about steadiness on his feet?……It wasn't - wasn't too bad but a little bit unsteady, yes. Right. Now after the boat left and after it sank, or nearly sank, did you receive a call from Sue Neill-Fraser?……Yes, I did. And do you remember the date of that?……No, I don't remember the date. I believe it's the 29th January is what I think I - Yeah, you believe that that's - you believe that's when the boat - …..No, no, that's when I remember receiving the call. Right. And did - what was the call, what did she say in that?……Just a general call to let me know that the vessel - the vessel had sunk and Bob was missing. And I wasn't entirely sure what the phone call was about but she proceeded to let me know that Bob had disappeared and they suspect that the - there was sort of an investigation possibly towards murder at this stage and, yeah, that was pretty much that, yeah. What else was said?……Oh, she just explained to me that the - her belief was at the time that somebody had murdered him on board and they'd used the fire extinguisher to weigh his body down and pushed him over the side.

P-523 J. A. McKINNON

Right. Did she mention ropes?……She mentioned, yeah, they've used a rope in the boat to winch his body up from the saloon area and tie the fire extinguisher to his body. How did she sound when she was saying this to you?……Just fairly normal, yeah. I don't believe that she was upset. When she's saying this about they used ropes to tie the fire extinguisher and to get the body up from the saloon, did she say that "This is what the police are telling me," or did she say -…….Yes, she - she claimed that the - that's what the police had told her. Right. Did she say anything about her relationship with Mr Chappell prior to these events in this call?…….She stated to me that they had broken up previously and weren't together anymore and she stated to me that she hadn't told police that. All right. Did she say anything about her intentions of telling the police that?…….No. Did she say why she hadn't told the police that?…….No. Thank you, Mr McKinnon.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

P-524 J. A. McKINNON

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Thank you, your Honour. This conversation you say, you thought took place on the 29th of January, are you sure about that?…….Ah that's what I - I remember. And you previously said that you recall receiving a phone call from Sue on either the 4th or 5th of February 2009?…….I don't recall. Have a look at this document please - just look at it, you need only to look at the first page and then look at the third page, read to yourself what's on the third page, say nothing about it, when you've finished reading it please tell me - but say nothing about it, will you?

MR ELLIS SC: I take it this is the witness' document, of course.

WITNESS: I don't understand what I'm reading - sorry, yeah.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Just the front page -…….Oh yeah - okay. Are you looking now at the second page?……Yes. I want you to look at the third, it'll save a little time if you do, but if you feel you want to read the second please do it……..Yep. Pass that back, please. Thank you. Mr McKinnon, you have in fact previously said that you received a phone call from Sue Neill-Fraser either - on either the 4th or 5th February 2009?……That's correct. So we can now accept that your memory, as you told us a little while ago about a conversation on the 29th January, is wrong?……That's correct. Thank you. So you accept this conversation at either the 4th or 5th February?……That's what I stated at the time. Thank you. Now what she - you've recounted what she told you, that she made it very clear to you when she was describing what she believed had happened, that that was what the police had told her their belief was?……That's what I believe, yes. Yes, thank you. Now you mentioned that she'd said that they'd broken up some time before, what I suggest to you is what she said to you is that there had been an occasion in the past long before where they had broken up for some time?……That's not - not my belief. You emerged from this conversation believing that it was a recent breaking up, is that right?……I did, yes.

P-525 J. A. McKINNON

Did she tell you when this break up had taken place?……No. Did she tell you anything more about it?……No. And you were left with no information at all about when the break up had occurred?……It wasn't any of my business at the time, no. I didn't - No, but I'm interested about what said. I mean she didn't say to you for instance, "We broke up around Christmas time", did she?……No. And she didn't say, "We broke up after we got back to Tasmania on the yacht"?......No. She did say, "We broke up in the New Year"?......I don't recall any dates or times, no. Right. And so all you were told was at some stage they had broken up?……Yes. Thank you. And you didn't enquire beyond that?……No. Thank you. Now do you recall the date upon which you first met Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell?……The date? Yes……Approximately September. September 2008……Yes. And was that when they were looking to purchase the boat or had they by then actually purchased it and it needed work done on it?……I first them when they were purchasing the boat, doing the first - So the contact hadn't been signed?……Oh, I don't know. I don't have any belief in that. Right. And you were required to do a mechanical inspection?……Yes. Did you write a report about that or just orally report?……I would have written a report about that. And who did you send it to?……Would have sent either in the post or via email to Sue.

P-526 J. A. McKINNON

All right. And by this time they'd returned to Tasmania had they?……Yes, I believe - I'm just trying to work out the ambit of what your instructions were. You met them when they were in the process of buying the boat?……Yes. It was in the marina, correct?……Yes. And they wanted you to do some sort of mechanical survey to see what mechanical problems the boat might have?……That's right. Right. And did you locate any major problems with the boat?……Not major problems just service and repair items. Sort of minor things?……Yeah, I'd classify them as minor, yes. All right. And you were then asked to do some fairly significant repairs weren't you?……Yes. And were those instructions given to you whilst Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell were in Queensland or did they give those instructions to you after they returned to Tasmania?……After they returned to Tasmania. And after receipt of your report?……Yes. So is it fair to say this, that the engine needed fairly major work done to it?……I don't classify it as major, I'd classify it as minor. Well you've said in the past, have you not, the repair process took eight to ten weeks?……That's correct, that's not fulltime, that's part time, that's the duration of the repair. On and off, is that right?……That's correct, yes. All right. And you would go to the yacht, get the keys presumably from somebody, go on board, do your work and go home?……Yes. But you've told Mr Ellis a little while ago you had cause to telephone Ms Neill-Fraser in relation to person or persons entering the boat?……Yes. You were obviously concerned about it?……Yes.

P-527 J. A. McKINNON

And you first discussed that with Mr Rowe, did you not?……Yes, I went straight to Mr Rowe, yes. Right, he was the broker?……He was the broker. And he was sort of acting as some sort of agent for Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell, was he not?……No, I don't believe so, he was just keen to help them out during the sale of the vessel. All right……Yep. And you said, I think, in the past that you noticed that ropes had been tied differently to the way you tie them?……Yes. Now what ropes and where were they situated on the boat?……The ropes were the small string ropes that are on the boom cover tied to the railings. Right. Could the witness be shown P3, please. Just take your time, please, and have a look through photos 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, if you would, Mr McKinnon. Now there are two booms on the Four Winds, aren't there?…….Yes. One on the mainmast and one on the mizzenmast?…….Yes. And you described some ropes in relation to the booms?…….The - no, boom cover. Yeah, the boom cover is that blue thing we see?…….No, it's not. Right. Well what's the boom cover then?…….The boom cover isn't in any of these photographs, it's an external cover you put on the vessel when the vessel is not being used for sailing. Right. And what's it look like?…….It's just simply a tarpaulin type material. It covers the cockpit to give protection to the wheelhouse. Right. So - and that would be, what, fitted across the mizzen boom, would it?…….The main boom. Right. …….Not the mizzen boom. Okay. So just describe it to us so we have an understanding of what you're talking about?…….It's jus simply a tarpaulin, a rectangle or a square tarpaulin, that covers the boom -

P-528 J. A. McKINNON

Yes.…….- from side to side. And sort of, what, runs down to the railings, does it?…….It's tied off on the railings on each side of the - of the gunnel. Right. And provides sun protection?…….Just provides sun and rain protection for the cockpit. Right. Thank you. And what had happened to this - what happened to the ropes, what was different about them that you looked at them and said, "Well this not my handiwork, it's somebody else's"?…….Just the - the knots that were tied were different to how I tie - tie them. Yes. How many times did you find this had occurred?…….Approximately two to three times. It wasn't any sort of damage to boat rather just -…….No. - indicating that somebody had been on it?…….That's correct. Did they need to undo those ropes to gain access to any part of the vessel?…….To gain access easily, yes, you have to undo it. Right. So you have to undo those ropes and, what, move the cover away -…….Yeah. - and then what, go down the hatchway?…….No, that just gives you access onto the deck of the boat. Right. So the ropes you've described and the cover impeded access along the deck?…….Yeah, impeded access to the - to the deck from the pontoon allegedly, from the pontoon onto the deck. Right. Thank you. And it was the ropes on the pontoon side in the marina that had been interfered with?…….That's correct. All right. Now apart from that, did you find any other signs of a person or persons getting onto the boat?…….I'd only found that my tools had been moved - Right. …….- from where I'd left them. And this is at the same time as you found the problems with the ropes?…….Yes.

P-529 J. A. McKINNON

All right. Now you were working downstairs in the boat, in the saloon area?……Yes, in the engine room. In the engine room, which goes straight off from the saloon, there's a steel door you go through -…….Yes. - to get into the engine room?……Yes. All right, and where would you leave your tools, in the engine room or -…….No, on the floor outside the door of the engine room. Just lying loose or in a toolbox?……No, they're in a toolbox and lying loose, but mainly in a toolbox, yep. And you found that your tools that were lying loose were moved or the toolbox moved?……No, the toolbox had been moved. And where had it been moved to?……Oh just moved aside just a short - about probably twelve to eighteen inches away, that's all. Right, and your toolbox was sitting on the floor obviously of the saloon. Was the floor carpeted then or just wood?……I don't recall. And by moving the toolbox could you get access to the panels underneath the toolbox?……I don't recall. You don't recall. But you found this on a number of occasions?……Oh only two to three times. Right, and you reported that to Ms Neill-Fraser?……No, not at the time, I reported that to the marina management and Jeff Rowe first. All right, and over what period of time did this happen? You were there off and on for eight to ten weeks, did it happen just in, say, one week or over the eight to ten week period?……Oh it mainly happened around a one to two week period early in the stage. Early in the piece?……Yep. All right. You also said you noticed things changing on the boat?……Yes. Was that the reference to the tools?……That's the reference to the tools, yes.

P-530 J. A. McKINNON

All right, were there any other things you noticed that were moved?……No. All right. You've previously said when you were asked about the movement of things on the boat - you were asked this question: What signs were that that internal illegal entry had taken place? And you said: Just my tools that I left behind had been moved for somebody to gain access to the - to engine room. ……..Yes. And that was the view that you took, that the tools had been moved so that the person could get into the engine room?……That's correct. Because to get into the engine room, as we've said, you've got to go through that steel door?…….It's got a big large swing steel door, yes. And your toolbox was right in front of the steel door?…….No, not in front of, it's - it was sort of back from there, but yeah, to - to open it fully you had to move the toolbox. Right. So once your toolbox was moved you could get in and out of the engine room steel door?…….Yes. Thank you. And of course, as we've heard, there was the problem with the electrical panel, but you chased that down to the electrician?…….Yes. Did you tell Ms Neill-Fraser that you'd actually identified the electrician as the problem?…….Yes, later on I did actually explain to Neill - Sue that Chris Gettys had been the person who had removed the panel to work on the regulators. Now you obviously reported to Ms Neill-Fraser your experience with your toolbox being moved and ropes being untied and retied?…….Yes. And would it be fair to say that she was very concerned that the person - persons had gotten onboard the boat?

P-531 J. A. McKINNON

MR ELLIS SC: Well that's -


HIS HONOUR: Just - just a minute? Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: The same objection my learned friend made about my questioning.

HIS HONOUR: How did she react when you told her about the - the tools having been moved?

WITNESS: Oh she was concerned that somebody had been entering the vessel.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): What did she say to you?…….I just recall her saying that it's - it's concerning that someone had entered the vessel and she hoped that it had not been involved in the drug trade. Yes - thank you. And this was in person by telephone that you reported to her?…….By telephone. Right. Now the sort of problems that you experienced with the boat ceased and you finished your work?…….Yes. And Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell came up to Brisbane to basically take over the boat and sail back to Tasmania?…….Yes. Now this is the second time you'd met them in person?…….Yes. The first time was when you described a little while ago when they were still, in September or thereabouts, buying the boat?…….That's correct. Over how many days did you see them on that occasion?……On - is that the second occasion? The first occasion?.......Oh the first occasion, I recall only one day. Yes. And you probably only saw them for a reasonably brief period?…….Approximately four to five hours.

P-532 J. A. McKINNON

All right. On board the boat?…….Yes. Right. And it wasn't unusual that one person within a couple purchasing a boat would take over the management of the necessary arrangements for the work would it?……No, it's not. No, not unusual at all is it?……No. No. And you weren't surprised that Ms Neill-Fraser took over, as it were, organising your work?……I wasn't surprised, no. No. And it's probably better you have one person giving instructions rather than two, no room for confusion is there?……That's right. Yeah. And - so you have said to Mr Ellis this morning that she seemed the dominant one of the two what you're really saying I suggest is that she took over the negotiations and ran the negotiations and instructions?……Yeah, I classify it as being dominant, yeah, it was just my feeling. Because it was a woman?……It may be, not sure. Yeah. And you thought it a bit unusual that a woman was being, shall we say, the one running the organisation rather than - …..It's not unusual, it does happen. Right. But - now - and it would be fair to say that Mr Chappell basically was in the background and appeared perfectly happy to let her do what she was doing?……Yes. Yes. He certainly didn't at any stage say, "No, that's not what we want", or "That's not what we're going to do", or anything like that?……I don't recall that. No, thank you. Now you've said that they did not appear to be intimate in your presence what did you mean by that, that they weren't holding hands and cuddling or something?……Oh, they - they just weren't, yeah, holding hands or they weren't - Weren't embracing each other publicly?……Oh, no, like some people, you know, are together and some people stay separate. Like I just felt as though they were friends was my feeling. You've dealt with the couples in the - who have come to you for work on many occasions……Yeah.

P-533 J. A. McKINNON

Yeah, well some would no doubt, to use an expression, be all over each other like a rash and others aren't not……That's right. Yeah, and they were at the other end of the spectrum or the extreme?……No, they - I just think - I think it's normal but they just - they weren't - they were just friends. Yeah. They seemed to have a relationship which was not one where they were embracing each other or kissing each other publicly?……That's correct. Thank you. Now when you first saw Mr Chappell in September was he, as you described to Mr Ellis, very slow and appeared very frail?……Yes. And did there appear to be any change in his condition when you saw him before they left Brisbane?……No, he just appeared to be elderly and slow. Right. Did they discuss with you their intentions for the yacht as to how they were going to use it?……No. But nonetheless it was clear to you that he was proposing to sail with her and the delivery crew back to Hobart.

MR ELLIS SC: If they didn't discuss it how could it possibly be clear to him, in my submission?

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): It was made clear to you as a result of -

MR ELLIS SC: I object to the question.

HIS HONOUR: Well what is the question, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Was it made clear to him as a result of what was said that Mr Chappell was going to go on the delivery voyage to Hobart?

HIS HONOUR: Any objection to that, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: No, but it's a different question though, your Honour.

P-534 J. A. McKINNON

HIS HONOUR: All right, well we'll have it. What do you say to that, was it made clear that Mr Chappell was going to go with Ms Neill-Fraser on the delivery voyage to Hobart?

WITNESS: My belief was he was going to travel with them, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC (Resuming): I just want to come back to these ropes that you found had been changed. I think in the past you've said three or four ropes had been changed -…….Yes. - over a period of a couple of weeks?……Yes. Thank you. And did you report the - your belief that there had been illegal entry to the boat to the marine operators?……I did. Who were the operators?……The owner of the marina, Mr John Paul Meera. Right. And was the boat at some stage moved from that marina to another one at Newport?……Yes. And that was because of these issues?……Yes. Thank you……..And also with intimidation from the female boat broker. She was intimidating you, was she, or trying to?……Oh she just made it very uncomfortable for me, yes. A very unpleasant lady?……Yes. Gave you a bit of abuse, did she?……No, not abused me, she just wouldn't stop talking about the boat and how she never got to sell it. Right. So you perceived that to be the cause of her antagonism, the fact that she missed out on a sale?……Yes. Mr Rowe, I think, got the sale?……Yes. Right. All right. Did Ms Neill-Fraser, on a number of occasions, raise with you issues relating to the operation of the motor on the

P-535 J. A. McKINNON

boat; that is, wanting to know how it operated, how it worked and so forth?…….Yes. Thank you. And she took quite an interest in it?…….Yes, definitely, yeah. All right. And you were happy to impart information to somebody who obviously wanted to learn about the vessel?…….Absolutely. All right. You sent the Tasmanian Police, specifically Detective Sergeant Smith, a list of the mechanical problems that you found onboard the boat, is that right?…….Yes. Do you have that list with you today?…….Yes. Could I have it produced please - it may help? Your Honour, I note the time, is that a convenient time, and I can look at the list -

HIS HONOUR: If you're going to be some time, then -

MR GUNSON SC: Depending on what I read, your Honour - I've got a few more questions, but I just thought that -

HIS HONOUR: Well we'll - if you like, if that's how you want to do it, we can take the morning break. The list can be produced to Mr Gunson for inspection and the jury can make their affirmation and the Court will adjourn for fifteen minutes.




HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

P-536 J. A. McKINNON

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, some documents I called for can be returned to the witness please. (Resuming): Mr McKinnon, what was the total cost of the repairs that you carried out to Four Winds, roughly?……I don't - roughly, it would have been between eight and twelve thousand dollars. Perhaps as high as seventeen to eighteen thousand?……It could be, yeah, I don't remember. Thank you. Just to come back to this person or persons who were going onto the boat I understand that you were the person who suggested the boat should be relocated in an endeavour to stop access to it by unauthorised persons?……It was. Yes. You raised that with whom?……Sorry? Who did you raise that issue with?……I raised that with Sue to get her permission to move the vessel. And she gave you permission to move the vessel?……Yes. All right. You observed Mr Chappell on or around the boat?……Yes. And did he appear to take a significant interest in the boat?……Yes, he did, yeah. Yep. Right. Do you recall him asking you many questions about electrical issues and mechanical issues?……He did. And appeared very interested also?……Yes. Yes, thank you. I have no further questions, your Honour.



P-537 J. A. McKINNON

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. The boom cover that you've been asked about, Mr McKinnon, you've described it as a tarpaulin, if that were not tied down would it flap perhaps in the wind if it were not tied down well?……Yes, it would. And would that, do you think, cause annoyance to the person living next door?……Yes, it could. So on two to three times the knots were different?……Yes. And the only sign of entry was one time when - no, I'm sorry, two times - or it might be one and the same time - two times when your toolbox was moved and the electrical panel was opened?……Yeah, I think the panel was removed sometime ago and I just hadn't noticed it. Right, and so that might have been at the same time that the toolbox was moved?……That's right. Which was - which turned out to be at a time that Mr Geddies, who you'd contacted, had been on board?……That's correct. Lawfully and with your permission?……Yes, with Sue's permission, yes. Yes. And was he given the means to go on board, a key?……Oh he had ongoing work to do on the vessel so he could've been there at any time without my knowledge. Yes. And the point about the panel is that it had slipped your mind that he'd been on board working on electrics?……Yes. Okay. And were there electrics also in the engine room?……There is electrics in the engine room, yes. And so may he have had access to the engine room at the time your toolbox was moved?……He was working on the alternator at some stage, so whether he had to go back to do some checks I'm not sure. Okay, thank you. You've said that you told Ms Neill-Fraser about the panel being the work of Mr Geddies?……Yes. Did you do that more than once?……I don't recall more than once, but definitely did, yes.

P-538 J. A. McKINNON

And the other matter that you were asked about was the conversation soon after the incident in which she said Bob - that Bob and her had broken up some time ago; did she say, "But we got back together again" or was that an ongoing situation at the time of the incident concerning the boat being sunk or attempting to be sunk?…….She didn't elaborate. Right. Thank you, I have nothing further.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, Mr McKinnon, you're free to go.





<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Mr Triffett, you're Phillip Paul Thomas Triffett?……Yes, I am. You live at Old Beach?……Yes. And you're a machine operator?……That's right. Thank you. Did you know Sue's partner Bob Chappell?……Yes, I did. How long have you known - have you know Ms Neil- Fraser?……From about '91, '92, something like that. How did you meet them?……I met them through a friend of mine Maria Hanson. And were you and Ms Hanson more than friends?……Yes. How did Ms Hanson know them?……How did she know Sue? Yeah…..She's known Sue for quite sometime before - before I'd actually met Maria she already knew Sue, I don't really know how they met. And where was Ms Neill-Fraser living when you first met her?……She was living at Moat House, Bagdad. Was she then seeing Mr Chappell?……Yes, she'd just commenced a relationship with Bob. And were they living together at the time you first knew them?……It was in the - like she was talking about moving in with Bob, like she wasn't actually living with him at that time. Okay. And did she in the time that you knew her with in with Bob?……Pardon? Did she move - did they commence living together?……Yes, they did later on, yes. Yes. Where was that?……Sorry? Where was that?……Where was that at, 7 Allison Street.


Okay. And as a couple did you Ms Hanson do things with them as couples?……Yes. What sort of things?……We would - well quite often go round to Sue and Bob's place for dinner and go out every so often and on a few occasions we went to a friend's property at Murdunna, a beachside block. Right. Did you ever stay with them at their house overnight?……I had, yes. Did you help with any odd jobs on the property?……Yes. Yes, I did, I just did odd jobs on Sue's property at Bagdad as well as some subdivision work that she was doing. Yeah. When you knew them did Ms Neill-Fraser have a yacht?…….Yes, she did, yes. Do you know where it was kept?…….Down at like either Electrona or - there was - there was a marina down Margate way, I'm not exactly sure where that was, I didn't take a lot of notice. Okay. Did you ever go on it?…….Yes, I did. And who did you go with?…….I went on a few different occasions; once with Sue and her daughters and Maria - Yeah.…….- and another time we went and there was just Sue and I. Okay. How did you get out to the yacht?…….We went out on a small dinghy type thing. Right. Was there ever a time that she wanted your assistance with the yacht?…….Yes. What was - what was that about?…….She had problems with the engine and I had a look at it to see what I could see being wrong with it. Ah ha. Did you make any suggestion about it?…….I did. What was that?…….Well I told Sue that the - like it had a problem where it was smoking and everything else, and I suggested the injectors might be blocked.


Right. On an occasion that you were on the yacht with her looking at the fuel, did she mention something to you about her brother?…….Yes. What was that?…….That she wanted to take Patrick out to sea and throw him overboard. Did she say why?…….Because he was - well he was in her way with the property of her mother's and - and her, like Patrick was the odd party. Right. Did she say anything to you about that you might have a role in this?…….Well she sort of thought that I'd assist her in some way.

HIS HONOUR: Well don't say what she thought, what did she say?

WITNESS: Well she asked for me to assist her to put Patrick overboard.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Okay. And how was he to be put overboard?…….Sorry? How - was anything to be done to get him overboard?…….He was to be just weighted down, pretty much. Was an object mentioned by which he could be weighted down?……Yes, the toolbox. Mhm. Was anything - this was on the yacht that you were -……This was on the yacht that we'd looked at - actually the occasion that this happened was when we was actually putting the injectors back into the boat. Right. And he having been thrown overboard was there anything to be done with the yacht?……Well I was supposed to take the yacht into the marina, which I can't handle or anything, I don't know anything - I wouldn't be able to do that, that's just not something I could do. Yes…….I was to take it closer to shore and sink it - Right……- for some reason. And how was Ms Neill-Fraser to get to shore?……She was going to take the dinghy and I was going to be on the boat. Right. If you sank it where would that leave you?……Without a paddle, because I can't even swim.


Did she show you some object about - that related to sinking that boat?……Yes, there was a bilge pump on the boat. Yes, there was a bilge pump. Do you recall what might have been done with the bilge pump and how that came into the plan?……Well we were supposed to - pulling off a - pulling off one side of the bilge pump and putting another extension line on it to pull seawater into it. Right. Did you argue with her about that or -…….Well not really, 'cause I didn't really want to - I didn't - I thought she was just over reacting and just saying something to, you know, like everyone says they're going to do some things and like I was very unsure as to whether she was serious or not at that time, like at that time like I just didn't sort of take a lot of notice of it, like I just thought well - Did she say anything to you that gave you the impression she was simply joking?……No, definitely not. Right. Did she - did she speak to you about that particular plan again?…….With - with Patrick, no, but then - then things did change and she'd actually changed the - like she'd changed what she was saying and then - then the next point that that sort of thing was mentioned was about Bob Chappell. Okay. Where were you when it was mentioned about Bob Chappell?…….I was at Sue's house. Okay. Was that at Allison Street -…….Yes. - West Hobart? And were there just the two of you there?…….Yes. What did she say to you?…….Well it started out by Sue was saying about how mean Bob was with his money and everything like that, and she thought that Bob was dangerous around the kids because apparently he'd been drinking or something through the night and waking up and running around with a knife or something thinking that there was somebody else in the house. And Sue - Sue started suggesting that, you know, like Bob was dangerous and she more or less said 'he had to go'.


Right. Did she anything more?…….Yes, there was - she - she wanted - like it was a bit different to what Patrick's was but she wanted Bob - well pretty much the same sort of thing but like the difference that stood out to me is that she wanted Bob wrapped in chicken wire. Okay. But was otherwise - did she mention the plan, what you'd discussed concerning Patrick, as happening to Bob?…….Yeah, well she just switched it around and she said that what we talked about with Patrick had to happen with Bob. Did you ask her what she meant by that?…….Well not really, no, I - I sort of got cut short because like she was suggesting this but then - then we - we actually got interrupted because Bob actually returned home. Okay. Can you - can you place that conversation in relation to something that you - that you did soon after, or somewhere where you went?…….Oh yes, yes well - yeah that - that was put to me and then not - not long after that we went to a trip to Murdunna -yeah like, what's the question? Oh, just to put in time, you went to a trip to Murdunna…..Yes. Who went on the trip to Murdunna?……Sorry? Who went on the trip to Murdunna?……There was myself, Bob and Sue, Maria, and there were some other people, I can't quite remember who they were though. No. And what did you do at Murdunna?……Well we went down and I actually started talking to my partner about what had been said to me and everything else and I don't think we actually even stayed at Murdunna, like, because things were just really really odd. Okay. Now soon after that was there a time that you - again that you were at Allison Street?……Yes, I went back to - Maria and I went back to Bob and Sue's dinner and I'd already talked to Maria about - about what had been said and she -

MR GUNSON SC: Object to that.

MR ELLIS SC: Okay, it's objected to but -

HIS HONOUR: Well ignore the information that he took to Maria about what had been said, ladies and gentlemen. Go on Mr Ellis.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): But prior to dinner did you speak to Sue?……Yes.


What did you say to her?……I said to Sue that she should tell Bob what she had said to me and I wanted to bring it out in the open as to what was said. And did you take any steps to do that?……Yes, I just said to Sue that she had to tell Bob what was - what was going on with what was said. Okay. And he wasn't there present?……Bob? He wasn't in the same room as you two at that - …..Who, Bob? Yeah……Yeah, Bob was there. Right. So you said to Sue, "You've got to tell Bob what's being going on"?......Yes, yes. And what did she say or do?……Well she - because Bob was there and like we were - we were - well I was trying to make the point to Bob that Sue had said these things and Sue automatically said, "Look you're lying", and she told me to leave. And did you leave?……Yes. Did you have anything to do with the couple after that?……No. What - obviously you've contacted police about this what caused you to?……Well because of the similarities of everything that had been talked about. Okay. Similarities with?……With Sue and Bob going missing is - it was just too much of a coincidence for me because - because it had been talked about, it was just too much of a coincidence, and that's why I did. Yes. So did you see police soon after hearing the news about what had happened to Bob?……Yes, I - I was working - working up at Tunbridge and - I can't remember, I think - I think I went like pretty much - well not then long after to - as soon as I got a chance to say what had happened and pretty much like say what had happened.


Yep. And at that time were you and Ms Hanson still partners, were you still living together?……No, no. But still friendly?……Yeah, still pretty much. Okay. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Mr Triffett, if I understand you correctly from what you've just told us have you got - sorry, you told Ms Neill-Fraser that she should tell Bob Chappell about what she'd said to you about getting rid of him, is that right?……Yes. Right. And he was in the room at the time?……Yes, he was. Right. And what exactly did you say to her?……Well I - I straight out said that she should tell Bob what she planned to do with him. And this was in his presence?……Yes. And did she tell him what she'd allegedly planned to do with him?……No, she never said anything. No, and you decided then to go and tell Bob in her presence what she'd said to you?……Yeah, pretty much. What did you tell him?……I told him that - or actually - I - I said that Sue was off her rocker and she wanted to get rid of him and that - that's pretty much what my words were. So Sue was off her rocker, yes. Had you been drinking at this stage?……I don't think so, I've never drunk in my life, mate. Haven't you?…….No. So, Sue was 'off her rocker' and she wanted to get rid of him; did she explain in detail how she was going to get rid of him - what the plan was?…….No, Sue - Sue cut it short, I wasn't able to. And she said to you that you were lying?…….That's right. Yes. And made it very clear immediately that you were lying - …….Yes. - and you were asked to leave, weren't you?…….That's right. And you did and you never came back?.......That's right. Right. These people had been - these people had been particularly kind to you, hadn't they?…….They had been, yes. Yeah. They in fact took you in at one stage after you'd been hospitalised, hadn't they?…….That's right, yes.


And that was after somebody shot you in 1995 in dispute, isn't it?…….That's right, yes. Yeah. You had a dispute with a gentleman on the Eastern Shore around your property, is that right?…….That's right, yes, yes. Mm, when shots were fired by a fellow called Cochlan -…….That's right. - and I think shots were fired by you and maybe your -…….Oh no, there was no shots - - compatriots?…….There was no shots fired by us. Right. In any event, a dispute of some form that escalated whereby you ended up getting shot?…….Well it didn't even escalate it just started and then it happened. Well you ended up - you ended up getting shot -…….Yeah, but it didn't escalate. - and going into hospital?…….It didn't escalate.

MR ELLIS SC: In my submission, your Honour, this is - this has lost its relevance if it ever had any.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): In any event they took you in -

HIS HONOUR: Well hang on - hang on -

MR ELLIS SC: (indistinct word) I'm objecting on the basis of relevance to what seems to be the exploration of an incident in which Mr Triffett was not at fault.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well do you propose to ask any more questions about the shooting incident of 1995, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, I don't, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well move on then please?

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): But they took you in after you came out of hospital and looked after you at home?…….Yes. In their home?…….Yes.


And they were very kind to you?…….Yes. And Sue was very kind to you?…….Yes. And you were there for some time, weren't you?…….Oh yeah, on and off, yes. All right. See I want to suggest to you, that there was no offer to you at all or proposition put to you at all along the lines you suggest, that she wanted to get rid of Bob?…….Well that's - that's not right. I mean you hadn't seen them on a regular basis, had you, you were an odd visitor, you'd come and go?…….Oh I wouldn't say that, we - we'd go there quite regularly actually. Mm. And how often was regularly then?…….Probably once a week. And we're talking around about late 1996/97 when we talk about the threat to Bob?……Yeah, that was the end - the end of the relationship between Sue and myself. Mm. Well it was - the end of the relationship was when you, as it were, spilled the beans in front of Bob?……Exactly. And that would've been a few weeks later, is that right?……Yes. All right. So we're talking about early '97?……Yes. All right. When then was the proposition put to you about Patrick?……About Patrick? Mm. How long before the Bob proposition?……How long before? Yeah…….Not all that long, but I - I couldn't exactly put a time on it 'cause I can't really put a time on it, I don't know. And are we talking months, are we talking a couple of years?……It may have been a few weeks or a few months, I can't really say, I lose track of time pretty quick. Right. And could it have been as long as a year, or don't you know?……No, I'd say weeks and months. Weeks and months, and this took place down at - on Sue's yacht?……Yes.


But as I understand the proposition that you're advancing it was a pretty ridiculous one because -…….It was stupid. - you would've been out in the sea by yourself?……Exactly. Yeah. And did you treat it as a joke at the time?……Well I didn't really know what to think of it to be honest with you, I didn't know. You didn't give it such weight as you might go and see the police and tell them that somebody had tried to recruit you to commit murder?……Oh well - You didn't do that, did you?……I didn't, no. No. And when the proposition, as you say, was put about Bob you didn't go to the police then and tell the police that somebody had offered you the opportunity to commit a murder, did you? You didn't, did you?……Well I didn't, no. No. And you knew it was a crime or something wrong to go and try and recruit -………Yeah. - somebody to commit a crime?……But I knew I wouldn't be doing it. No, but you knew it was wrong to -……..It was. - put a proposition to somebody that they should be recruited to commit murder, didn't you?……Oh it was - of course it's wrong. Yeah, but you didn't even think to go and see the police?……Well I think - Not once, but twice…….- if everyone went to the police with something that they'd heard or seen and maybe could be it would waste a lot of people's time and - You haven't answered the question. You didn't think to go to the police did you?……It had crossed my mind. You didn't go, that's the end result isn't it?……Yes. Yes. Let me be quite clear about this, you're a person with a few prior convictions aren't you?……Oh, minor things, yes.


Minor things. You've got a conviction for assaulting a Bill Dennis haven't you?

MR ELLIS SC: Well I think my learned friend might have applied for leave before this.

HIS HONOUR: I'm sorry?

MR ELLIS SC: I think leave is required, your Honour, under the Act. No, I might be wrong, I'm sorry, I withdraw that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Go on Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you. (Resuming): Well you've got a prior conviction haven't you for assaulting a Mr Bill Dennis?……That's how it worked out that way, yeah. Yeah. That was about 1995 you were convicted and put on a bond……Yes. And you've got a string of traffic convictions haven't you?……Oh, a few. A few. If I suggested to you you'd probably have somewhere in the order of fifteen to eighteen traffic convictions you wouldn't argue with that would you?……I'm on the road all the time so it's possible. You wouldn't argue with it would you?……No, well I have no idea really. Like I said I'm on the road all the time so it is possible. Any other convictions?……Um, well, yes. The other one would be I actually had in my possession - I handed firearms in and I didn't hand the bullets in because I didn't realise that they were an offence to have them and I held them and later on I was charged with the possession of ammunition, two rifles that I owned, that I bought, and didn't hand in. And that was something that even if I'd known I would have handed those in too, like I didn't need them. Well you were convicted of, only this year I think, of having over a thousand rounds of 7.62 ammunition and a number of shotgun cartridges and other assorted rounds of ammunition, weren't you?…….Yeah, that's all back from the firearm registration time and like I said - Yeah.…….- I just had them in my possession, didn't have the firearms.


Do you have any other convictions?…….Oh I don't know, you tell me? We might get to that, but in the meantime I'd like you to tell me what you believe your convictions are?…….Oh well, I don't know really. You don't know?…….Yeah. Well on the day that you were convicted of the firearm offences by way of example, were any other offences dealt with?…….Yes, there was a - Yes - there was another one, wasn't there?

MR ELLIS SC: Well I'm sorry, I've got to draw my learned friend's attention to something, it might be that he's -

HIS HONOUR: You want to have a - well do you want to have a private word to him?

MR ELLIS SC: Well I - yes, I will have a private word to him, if you wouldn't mind, your Honour.


MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): Yes, well I - did you appear in the Magistrate's Court on the 7th of September 2010, which was the same day as the firearms matter, and were you charged also with unlawful possession of property?…….Yes, that's right. Yes, and the unlawful possession of property related to you being in possession of a Makita router -…….Yes. - and a set of MDF timber stairs, reasonably believed by a police officer to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained?…….Well they couldn't actually prove that, but anyway. But you appeared in the court on that charge and you pleaded guilty, didn't you?…….To having them, yes, yeah because I did have them. Yes, yes - thank you. And it was adjourned without conviction for a period of two years upon you entering into a bond to be of good behaviour and to appear for sentence if called upon?…….Yeah.


Thank you. Now -

MR ELLIS SC: Sorry, is my learned - are you going to correct the other -

MR GUNSON SC: Sorry? (Resuming): And in respect to the firearms offences, a similar order was made?…….That's right. Yes. So whilst not formally convicted by the court, nonetheless, you pleaded guilty to those offences?…….Well - You pleaded guilty, didn't you?…….Well I had them, yeah, of course I did. Yes, thank you. Now -…….There was nothing untowards me having them though. - let me just take you back to the yacht owned by Sue Neill-Fraser, you've said there were some problems with the injectors?……That's right. Two injectors, you said injectors?……It may - it may - well I can't exactly remember whether there was one or two. Right, so if I was to suggest to you it was a single cylinder Perkins engine you wouldn't argue with that, would you?……No, probably not. Which would logically only have one injector?……That's right. Thank you. Now I want to suggest to you with respect to this conversation about Patrick that there was never an occasion that you were on the boat alone with Sue Neill-Fraser?……That's wrong. And I want to suggest to you that on no occasion did you ever have a discussion with her along the lines you've told us about, about Patrick?……No, well there was. Have you ever claimed that Sue Neill-Fraser helped you to get off an assault charge at some stage?……I did say that, yes. And who were you alleged to have assaulted on that occasion?……It was supposed to have been to do with assault with Bill Dennis, the one that you mentioned before.


Right. So there was quite a bit to do with Bill Dennis between you and he, wasn't there?……Oh there was just a bit of a problem there for once. Yeah, and you got put on a restraint order at some stage which required you to have no contact with him, didn't you?……And so was he, it was a - Just listen to the question, were you put on a restraint order by the Magistrates' Court preventing you having any contact with Bill Dennis?……Yes. Thank you. And you were restrained by the Court from assaulting, harassing, him, molesting him or annoying him?……That's right. Yes, all right, and at some stage you say Sue helped you to get off an assault charge, what do you mean by that?……Well she just advised me what to say, she said that I should say that I restrained him and that's how the assault took place. I see…….And that's what I said. Now -…….Which was the case anyway, that was pretty much it, but I didn't word it like that, I - I - I made it sound something that it wasn't. Just listen to me, will you. Did you blame Ms Neill-Fraser in any way at all for the break-up of the relationship between you and Maria Hanson?……No, I don't. You say they're totally unconnected?……'Course they are. But I want to suggest you did at some stage, blame Ms Neill-Fraser for breaking up that relationship?…….No, I never ever said that. Right. Now you did break-up with Ms Hansen not long after the Murdunna trip?…….Pretty much, yeah, yeah - oh well actually it was - it was a bit longer than that, yeah, went on a few years after. It was within a very short period, wasn't it?…….No, it wasn't - no, it wasn't.


Now I also want to suggest to you that you were never propositioned by the accused with respect to Bob Chappell; that is you be recruited, as it were, to do away with him?…….Well that was what was said. I suggest to you, it did not happen and that what you've told to this Court is a complete an absolute fabrication?…….Well I can tell you now it's not. You - did you see cooperation with the police in this matter as a means, perhaps, of getting you out of other problems which had developed as early as the 7th of January 2009 when the police -…….It was never never - - searched your house?…….- never - it was never a part of it. It was - what's - what's that got to do with it? You will agree that the charges that we've talked about to which you pleaded guilty arose out of police calling at your home on the 7th of January 2009?…….Sorry - That's true, isn't it?…….What was that again, mate? The police searched your house on the 7th of January 2009 and they found the ammunition and the router and the stairs?…….Yeah, well I wasn't worried about that. No. And you say it's just a pure coincidence that just a month later you come up with this story?…….Well it's a month later that Bob was killed, and that's made - made me come forward. Yes. Yes, I've no further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: You've been asked about some connection with - with those charges - the charges proceeded, didn't they?…….Sorry, mate? The charges proceeded, the ones from the 7th of January?…….Yeah, yeah I had to go to court and put my bit to it. Yeah, and did you ever try to make some deal with police that they'd go away -…….No, I just went in and said it as it was and how I acquired things and - and then the magistrate made his decision. Sorry, in connection with the information you have given about Sue Neill-Fraser, did - …….Sorry, mate, what was that? In connection with the information about Sue Neill-Fraser, did you ever link the two - two things?…….No, not at all, no. Thank you. Nothing further, thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, Mr Triffett, you're free to go.





<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Is your full name Shane Morton?……Shane Robert Morton. Thank you. And you're a Constable with the Victoria Police?……Leading Senior Constable with the water police. And - so you're with the water police are you with a particular team of the water police?……Yeah, underwater security team. All right. What does that mean?……We deal with security in the port and also search for underwater exhibits. Okay. And in terms of searching for underwater exhibits do you have some training in that?……Yeah, I've done several internal courses and external courses in relation to use of side scan sonar, remote operated vehicles, GPS, mapping systems. How long have you been in that position?……Five years. Okay, thank you. Now on Thursday the 16th April last year did you travel to Hobart?……Yes, that's right. What was the purpose of your visit?……We were to meet up with detectives from Hobart CIB and conduct a search of the Derwent River for them in relation to the missing male. Thank you. If I can just ask you to speak up a bit, I'm having - …….Sorry. I can't quite hear you. So you were to search the Derwent for a missing male, so what happened when you got here to Tassie, what did you do?……We liaised with Detectives Sice and Sinnitt from the Hobart CIB, gathered some intelligence off them as to what they wanted us to do, the area they wanted us to search and so forth and we commenced that search on Saturday morning using side-scan sonar. All right, and how does this side-scan sonar work?……Basically it's a large steel torpedo shaped object that's towed behind the boat at about 5 knots, it has a transducer on each side of it and it sends out sound waves at fifteen hundred metres per second. These sound waves bounce off objects on the seabed, come back to the sonar, that information is then transmitted through a cable up to the boat and we view the image as a waterfall on a computer.


Is there some sort of sophisticated software that interprets that information?……Yeah. And what do you get visually?……In layman's terms it's sort of like shining a torch on an angle across a flat surface and you get a return from an object and you'll see a shadow from that object, so it's like shining a torch from either side as you're going along. Okay. And where did you - where did you do this sonar search?……In Sandy Bay between Battery Point, I think it is, and Wrest Point Casino. I noticed you brought your laptop in with you, is it -…….Yeah, I've got an electronic version of the search area on my laptop that we covered, it was about a nautical mile by half a nautical mile wide. If you're able to pull your laptop out perhaps we can plug that into the screens. Your Honour, perhaps I should mention that what I am going to ask the constable to show the jury won't - I don't have it in a form that I can tender easily at this stage - it can be reproduced so that we can tender it at a later stage, but my intention was simply to get him to, really as part of his evidence, show where - where the search was conducted through a use of the images from his laptop - if it please?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well there seems to be no objection; this can be done this way. So ladies and gentlemen, you may only get to see this once.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: So it might be a good idea to pay attention. Yes.

WITNESS: I - I can burn a disc of it, your Honour, onto HTML, a web type page format.

HIS HONOUR: Well I'll leave you to talk counsel for the Crown about that.

WITNESS: Just bear with me, your Honour, while it loads up?



MR SHAPIRO: All right. Now what's that we're looking at?……What you're looking at there is - all those red lines are our survey lines that the vessel - gives the vessel operator a guide. The brown portion that's filling in there is the raw sonar data from the Towfish and you can see Sandy Bay outlined there, the bathymetric data. So am I right in thinking that those brown lines that have been drawn on - as we're watching it are where the sonar device was actually towed by the boat?……Yes, that's right. And I believe you can show us that with an overlay of an area - a photograph of Sandy Bay?……Yeah, I can bring that up for you. Thank you…..It's only just a portion of Sandy Bay that we had georeference images for. Oh, so it's just that little square that we can - …..Yeah. Okay, all right. Well perhaps if the witness is shown P1, it should be clear, perhaps you can - you might need to stand up and just show the jury where that little square that we can see on the computer is on this map that's in evidence……Yeah, well you can see - clearly see the yacht moorings and the Royal Yacht Club here identical to on the screen. At the top left of the red arrows there is these pens. Thank you. Thank you for that. So how big an area was searched with this sonar?……It was a nautical mile long so 1.852 kilometres and approximately half a nautical mile wide. And - well were you - were you told about where a particular yacht was in relation to - ……Yes the - in relation to the investigation where the - where the white arrow is now was about the location of the deceased's yacht. Thank you. And how far is that off - from the shore?…….I can measure that for you. Thank you. …….If you're looking at that portion of shore there, it's approximately five hundred and forty metres, and our search area extended, well laterally out to about seven hundred and - eight hundred metres roughly, to the extreme edge was, as you can see, seventeen hundred metres. Sorry, so how far was it from the yacht to the furthest point out that you searched?…….Seventeen hundred metres. That's the diagonal area there.


Okay. And the top corner?…….The top corner, roughly seven hundred and fifty metres, eight hundred metres. Thank you. Okay. And how - do you know how deep it is in that - …….Yeah, it was shallower near the yacht. If I turn on the bathymetric data again, it went out to about twenty four metres, I think. Yeah out - it was sort of around twenty five metres out, and the extremity of the search closer to the boat it ranged from sort of ten to fifteen. Okay. Now how many objects was in that area, were -…….We located ninety objects of interest, various interests - that's those displayed there. We concentrated our search more for larger type of shapes. We allocated some search areas on Monday to the divers and over the next two days we cleared about twenty five of those targets with the Tas Pol divers. So when you say you cleared them, those items were dived on by a diver -……Yep. - and it was determined that they weren't items of interest?……That's right, yeah. We located various things, old sunken dinghies, cages, moorings, blocks of concrete, wheelie bins, all sorts of stuff like that that was of no interest to the investigation. You said earlier that it was like - I think you said shining a torch sideways on something, have you got an image of what you meant by that?……Yeah. For instance that's - that was near the deceased's yacht and it's -

MR GUNSON SC: I object to the use of the word 'deceased'.

WITNESS: Sorry, the - I'll rephrase that.

HIS HONOUR: Near Mr Chappell's yacht.

WITNESS: Mr Chappell's yacht, that's sort of a metre by metre square steel type cage, it was on the bottom. This is the sort of view you get as you're scrolling - as you're towing the sonar along. The image here, that's a surface reflection of the underside of a yacht. The bottom's fairly flat there, a muddy sort of sandy bottom. This is another surface return from a yacht, that's a rope going to the


mooring of that yacht. This here is a school of fish, so it picks up small things and large things, it often depends on the reflectivity of the object as to what it picks up. Air, for example, air bubbles in a fish's bladder picked up really well, concrete sort of has a reflectivity coefficient of about forty percent.

MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): And so from using this you located about ninety items?……Yeah. And you looked at twenty five of them?……That's right, and we left a target catalogue with the Taspol divers. If they chose they could dive on the rest of those objects. Thank you, your Honour, I submit the witness.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Are there any reasons then, Senior Constable, why you didn't extend the search area beyond what you've shown us on the screen?……Oh that was purely time constraints. Right. Your time or Tas Pol divers' time?…….It was more a, yeah, I think it was more of Tas Pol's discretion as to how long they had us for in the State. So the reality is, I think you said that you conducted your search on the 19th of April, and you started at 9:00am and finished at about :00pm?…….We conducted the search on Saturday and Sunday the th and 19th, and the 20th and 21s t was alongside the divers. Right. Nobody suggested you should expand the search area?…….No, no. Right. Who directed you, was there anybody actually directing you in where you'd operate?…….That was purely with Detectives Sinnitt and Sice from the Hobart CIB. All right. And you seem to have started your search basically at the Four Winds and moved south, is that right?…….Yes. The orientation point appears to be Four Winds, is that correct?…….Yeah, Four Winds was approximately where - And you went directly south from Four Winds but didn't move north?…….Well north, we moved a little ways north but - Not as far as you moved south?…….No. Because I think you said you moved south about seventeen hundred metres?…….Yes. And your search over the shown area, or designated area, was no doubt a thorough one?…….Yes. Right. And you picked up, I think you said, some ninety objects of interest, some of which were dived in your presence others not?…….Yes, that's right. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Nothing in re-examination, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, senior constable, you're free to go.

WITNESS: Thank you, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: Things have gone quicker than I expected, your Honour, we don't have anymore witnesses ready this morning.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well would there be any purpose served in resuming at two o'clock rather than two fifteen, or should we leave it at two fifteen?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, I'm checking that they are coming in - yes, we should be able to resume at two, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, is that inconvenient to anybody? All right, well the jury can make their affirmation and the Court will then adjourn until two o'clock.




HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Ellis.


MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, I understand that my learned friend on behalf of the accused will admit that the letter I will seek to tender and publish is a letter from Dr Hilary Bower. Would your Honour like to see it first?

HIS HONOUR: I'd better have a look.

MR ELLIS SC: Yep, s184 of the Evidence Act seems the most convenient method.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, I tender that then, your Honour.



MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Dr Hilary Bower, Franklin Street, Lindisfarne, Tasmania 7015. There's an ABN, phone and fax numbers, surgery hours Monday to Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. /9/2010 To whom it may concern Maria Hanson is a patient who attends this clinic. She suffers from significant depression and severe trigeminal neuralgia with chronic pain. The medications required to treat her conditions cause significant drowsiness and altered mental cognition. Her daughter is currently extremely unwell with an enlarging tumour and pancreatitis. I am extremely concerned about Maria's current mental state, she is not fit to attend for court proceedings and may well require hospitalisation.


Yours faithfully, Dr Hilary Bower.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, you admit what, that that's an authentic letter?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, and the relevance of that, ladies and gentlemen, is that it explains the absence of the former partner of Mr Triffett, who gave evidence earlier today. Yes, thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro.


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour, I call Brian Purcell, page of volume 2.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat, constable. Yes?

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Can you please state your full name?…….Brian Daryl Purcell. And where are you stationed?…….I'm currently attached to the Dog Handler's Unit in Hobart. And you're a constable?…….Yeah, constable. Thank you. And were you attached to that same unit on the 29th of January last year?…….Yes, I was. Okay. And you were working on that day?…….Yes, I was, I was rostered on seven til four. Thank you. And did you attend the Cleanlift Marine complex in Goodwood to search a yacht there with your police dog?…….Yes, I did. And that yacht was called the Four Winds?…….Yes, that's correct. All right. So what did you do when you got there?…….When I arrived I met with Detective Constable Danny Jackson. We then went onto the yacht and had a look around prior to taking the dog on, and then we went back onto the yacht with the dog and conducted a search the best we could. And you say "the best we could" what do you mean by that?…….Things had obviously been moved prior to us getting there, and there was still water on the floor of the yacht, which made it hard for us to get the dog in certain areas. Why was that?…….The dogs like to be sure footed and a lot of the dogs don't like the water, so obviously manoeuvring the dog in and around there was quite difficult. Okay. So how effective was your search with the dog?…….I wouldn't say it was effective at all.

P-566 B.D. PURCELL Was anything located by the dog?…….No, there were nil detections given by the dog. Thank you, your Honour, I submit the witness.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: You said your search wasn't effective at all, do I assume from that, that there were parts of the yacht you simply couldn't get to with the dog to enable the dog to do its work?…….That's correct. And what parts of the yacht were they?…….I don't recall exactly, when we hop - when we do a search with the dog our main - main focus is to watch the dog, and our head is down a lot of the time and we watch the dog for indications so obviously all I see is what's coming ahead of the dog and as I said there was just areas where there were pools of water and things moved from certain areas of the yacht to other areas. Am I right in thinking that anywhere there was a pool of water the dog didn't go?……That's correct. And there was quite a lot of water still on board the yacht as I understand your evidence?……Yes, that's correct. Extending from the bow right through into the saloon?……I think the bow was worse from memory but as I say I don't really recall exactly where the water was. But there was still lots of it there?……Yes, there was. Thank you, I've no further questions.



MR SHAPIRO: I call Constable Ben Cunningham, it's at page 303 of volume 2, and he also has a supplementary proof, page 75 of the supplementary volume.




<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you, your Honour. Is your full name Benjamin Cunningham?……Yes, it is. And what's your rank?……I'm a Constable in the Tasmania Police Service and I'm currently stationed at Marine and Rescue Services in Hobart. Were you stationed there in January last year?……Yes, I was. And were you on duty on the 27th January?……Yes, I was. And where did you go at 8 o'clock in the morning?……I attended the Hobart Domain Slip in company with Constable Ashley Kent. Okay. What did you do there?……We'd been called to attend there in relation to some information received and Constable Kent and I prepared a diesel powered pump for transport to Sandy Bay. Why were you - why did you need the pump, what information - …….Oh, we'd received information that a yacht was sinking on its mooring at Sandy Bay. Okay. And so what did you find when you - where did you go?…….Constable Jackman attended in the police vessel Observer, and we loaded that pump aboard the police vessel Observer, and shortly after that two members of the Tasmanian Fire Service attended with another pump and we all then went aboard the Observer to Sandy Bay, where I observed a approximately eighteen metre yacht on the mooring partially sunk - the yacht was called the Four Winds. Thank you. And was there anyone aboard the yacht?…….At that stage there was Constable Lawler, who is a member of our office, and another constable I don't know his name. And what did you do?…….I assisted with - with other members of our office and the Tasmania Fire Service in preparing the pumps and - and getting the pumps started in order to pump the - the vessel, or pump water from the vessel.


All right. And where were the hoses from the pump placed?…….I opened a hatch, I think from memory there were two hatches, I opened the middle hatch to the vessel from the outside it was unlocked, and we placed the suction hose from the pump in through that hatch into the water on the bottom of the vessel. Okay. And - all right - and how long was - well, how long did it take to pump the majority of the water out?…….I would estimate about an hour. Right. Okay. And when the water was almost all pumped out was anything found?…….Yes, I was with Constable Lawler when he located a - a pipe to a toilet that had been - or appeared to be cut, and a short time after that I located a - a ball valve seacock under the floor near the bow of the vessel that was open, and I - I shut that seacock off. Was there something - some noise that led you - led you and Constable Lawler to locate this cut pipe?…….Yeah, there was the sound of running water, or trickling water. Right. And if the witness can be shown P3, photo 58 please?....Yeah, that's the hose to the toilet aboard the Four Winds. So that's where you - there was water coming from there?……There was. And so you said you located something else, what was that?……Another - they're called skin fittings, which is a hole in the bottom of the vessel with a tap, for want of a better word, yeah, connected to it to stop the ingress of water. That was open, and that was allowing water to enter the boat as well and I shut that tap off. And where was that in relation to the toilet with the pipe?……Yeah, it was just forward of where the toilet door was, towards the bow of the boat, and it was under the - under the floor towards the bow of the boat. Okay. Thank you. If the witness can please be shown P47 and in particular photograph number 17.

HIS HONOUR: The jury have got that in the small, the back collection. It was tendered separately but it's photo 17 from the back section of that folder.


MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): Now is that - what does that show?……That shows the ball valve that I located in the bilge of the Four Winds. Perhaps if you can hold it up and point out for the jury where that is?……Yeah, if you look towards the middle of the photo there's a valve there with a blue handle. And you can see there's a little - there's some pipe attached to that valve, did that go anywhere?……That was just a short - a short piece of pipe that wasn't connected to anything. And so you turned that valve off?……Yes, I did. And sometime later you were involved in moving the vessel to Constitution Dock, is that right?……Yes, I was. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Have you got photograph 47 in front of you still, is that right?……No, I've got 58 and 17.

HIS HONOUR: P47 is photo 7 - is a photo numbered 17.

MR GUNSON SC: P47. (Resuming): Have you got P47, the photos?……Yes. It's like that…..Yeah. Thank you. Now do you see a piece of blue cord there and the edge of a tag sitting - sticking out behind that white pipe, do you see that?……Yes. Yes, I do. That was a tag indicating the purpose of that valve was it not?……I don't recall. I don't recall looking at that tag or seeing it. No, but you can what appears to be V-A-L and that tag, do you see that?……Yeah, I do, yes. Did you have a look at other valves on board the boat?……No, I didn't. Have a look at this photograph. I'm showing the witness photograph from P55. Do you see the tags there?……Yes, I do. Is that familiar to you in the sense that you've seen tags like that on the valves on that boat?……No, I haven't. Right.

HIS HONOUR: This is the rear photo in the blue folder, ladies and gentlemen.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): In any even the valve - sorry, in any event the tag - the corner of the tag you're looking at seems to be very similar to the type of tag I've shown you in photo 28 doesn't it?……It does, yes. Thank you. Now it's not unusual on board boats to - at least once they're properly maintained, to have tags indicating what the purpose of a valve might be?……That's correct. And in fact it's very common isn't it?……It is common, yes.


And the purpose being that somebody can lift up the floorboards looking for a valve and know exactly what it is?……Yeah, that would be correct. Right. And what you've seen there is an example I suppose of good boat maintenance?……Yes, it would be. Thank you. Now the sort of valves that - or seacocks that are on that boat are very much stock standard aren't they?……Yeah, they're common to most vessels. And particularly common to yachts of that size?……Oh, most vessels, yeah. All vessels have similar ball valves. Yes. And you would expect on a yacht of some 53 feet for there to be a number of ball valves or seacocks on board?……That's correct. And there are number of purposes why water needs to come into the boat, for engine cooling, for toilets and pumps to wash decks down with, or hoses to wash decks down?……Yeah, that's correct. And there's any number of reasons?……Yes. And most types of seacocks, such as the ones shown there, are generally underneath the floor or, wait for it, behind panels?……Yeah, not necessarily. Commonly though under floorboards?……No, I wouldn't say commonly, no. Right…….The most common type of ball valve is for raw water cooling of an engine and they're usually exposed. Yes. It's not uncommon on yachts of this size to have them covered up for aesthetic purposes, people don't like seeing ball valves sticking out the side of their yacht or coming up through the floor?……Yeah, that would be correct, yeah. So there's certainly nothing unusual about the system on board this boat, was there?……No, no. And normally you would want to be able to get quick access to your valves if there was a problem?……Yeah, on the commercial vessels that I normally deal with valves are - valves are labelled somewhere up high at eye height so you know that there'd be a valve under that floor.


This wasn't a commercial vessel, this was a pleasure boat?……No, but I've only had dealings mainly with commercial vessels. Thank you. And in your time as a police officer presumably you've had to go on board the odd (indistinct word) or two to salvage it or save it from sinking?……Yes, that's correct. And on those occasions have you had cause to look at the valve systems on board to make sure that -…….No, I haven't. Right, thank you. Now the vessel was sitting low in the water when you came on board?……That's correct. How low?……I would suggest that it was less than a foot from the water covering the decks mid-ships and towards the bow. Right, so let's think about that in the terms of the saloon, you looked down into the saloon?……Yes. And how high did the water come up in the saloon?……From memory about the second or third step from the cockpit. Right, so you've got steps coming down from the cockpit into the saloon?……Yes. And it was around about the second or third?……Yes. It was some time before I actually entered that part of the boat, I was on the for'ard part of the deck operating pumps and it wasn't until a considerable amount of water had been pumped out that I entered the vessel. When you first looked into it your estimation was that the water was around the second or third step?…….Yeah, that's correct. Right. And did that extend right through the vessel?…….Yes, it did. Thank you. How long did it take to empty the vessel to a point where you could regard it as safe to go downstairs?…….I - I - my recollection would be that it was approximately an hour. Right. That's what, with three pumps running?…….Three or four - we had four pumps there but I don't recall if we had actually the four running.


When you looked at the severed toilet pipe, was it flowing at a full rate or only partly?…….It had been shut off - So you didn't see it in operation?…….No, I didn't. Thank you. And I suppose that - the same answer with respect to the floor based seacock?…….No, I shut that one off. You shut that off?…….Yeah. And how far open was that - completely open?…….That was completely open. Thank you. And - no, I won't proceed with that. Yes, I have no further questions of the officer.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?


<REXN - MR SHAPIRO: Do you have photograph 17 there still?…….Yes, I do. Yes. It's been put to you that you can see a tag in that photograph; can you actually see the - read the tag in that photograph?…….No, I can't. Does it appear to be attached to the valve that you were talking about?…….No, it doesn't.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, constable, you're free to go.

WITNESS: Thank you, your Honour.


MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour, I call Craig Jackman at page 305.




<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your full name is Craig Howard Jackman?……Yes, it is. And you're a constable?……I am. Thank you. Where are you stationed?……I'm stationed at Marine and Rescue Services in Hobart. And you were stationed there on the 27th January last year?……I was. And where did you get called to at 7 in the morning?……I got called - I was actually on water police call and I received a call there was a vessel sinking off Battery Point so we proceeded down to the Hobart Slipway and boarded the police vessel Observer there and made our way to Battery Point. And when you say 'we' who were you working with?……With Constable Kriss Lawler. And what did you observe when you arrived at Battery Point?……We observed the yacht Four Winds, it was sinking - it was actually low in the water, bow down, and obviously filling with water. Okay. And so what did you do?……I let Kriss Lawyer off the police vessel and he went on board the Four Winds. He gained access to the helm to make sure there was nobody on board, I stayed on the police vessel Observer. Was there a reason you stayed on board the Observer?……In the event that the yacht did start to go down we'd have to make a quick getaway, we were actually tied onto the yacht at the time. Thank you. And Constable Lawler didn't find anyone on his search?……No, he didn't. And so what did you do after that?……We stayed for a short amount of time, Constable Lawler searched the yacht as much as he could, and then at around about 8:15 I went back to the Hobart Slip and picked up some fire service personnel and more personnel from Marine with diesel pumps and we proceeded back to Four Winds.


And when you got back to the Four Winds with those pumps what did you do?……We gained access to one of the bow hatches and then started the pumps as quickly as we could just to alleviate some of the water damage. And at that time there were also some personnel from Aqua Scuba arrived with their pumps as well so we had, I think, all up three pumps working at the same time. And you assisted moving the Four Winds to Constitution Dock?……Yeah, later that day we took the Four Winds under tow, towed it back to King's Pier where it was made fast against the Constitution Dock wall. Thank you, I submit the witness.



MR SHAPIRO: Your Honour, I call Ashley Kent, page 301.


P-578 A.J. KENT

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Please state your full name?……Ashley John Kent. And you're a Constable?……Yes. Where are you stationed?……Currently stationed at Marine Services. And you were also stationed there 27th January last year?……Yes. All right. What happened at quarter to eight in the morning on that day?……I attended work that morning in North Hobart and was informed to attend to a vessel sinking in Sandy Bay with Constable Cunningham. Okay, and where did you go with Constable Ben Cunningham?……We went to our berth down at the Domain Slip and prepared the vessel, Observer, and also prepared a pump, a fire fighting pump, and we also picked up two fire officers with another pump as well, and left directly to the vessel in Sandy Bay, Four Winds. What did you find when you got to the Four Winds?…….When I arrived the vessel was - only had about twenty or thirty centimetres left of freeboard, it was well - well full of water. What do you mean by "freeboard"?…….In other words, the amount of water to go before the - it breaches the hull and begins to completely fill the vessel. Thank you. So what did you do as a result of seeing that?…….I assisted in preparing the pump to suction the water out and placed that pump onto the Four Winds with the assistance of Ben Cunningham, and placed the hose down into the for'ard - for'ard area of the vessel. For'ard, you mean the front?…….Yes, through the for'ard hatch. So that's a hatch in the front of the boat?…….Yes. Thank you. And was there anybody else already there when you arrived?…….Yes, Constable Chris Lawler was in attendance and another uniform officer. All right. And did you look inside the vessel with Constable Lawler?…….Yes, I did, yes.

P-579 A.J. KENT

And he showed you a cut pipe behind a toilet where some water was flowing?…….Yes, that's right. And did you - were you involved with some diving that occurred later that day?…….Yes, it would have been short time later when the dive platform arrived, I transferred to that vessel and commenced dive operations. All right. How - how did that work?…….I believe the - the dive platform turned up at about twenty past twelve, half past twelve, that day. We placed that dive platform close to the Four Winds. I then boarded that vessel, there was dive equipment already prepared for me, and we dived - myself and Constable Williams dived to the bottom of the mooring and commenced a circular arc search around the vicinity of the vessel. When you say a circular arc search what was in the middle of the circle?……Myself holding onto the mooring directly below the vessel. Okay. How does the arc search work?……It involves two divers, as it did on this day, as a minimum and myself acts as the pivot for the search and the other diver is paid out a short distance in relation to the visibility at that time and then that diver commences a circle acting - going around me being the pivot controlling the distance that that diver is travelling. So you're - just to get this clear, you're on the bottom where the mooring is?……Yes. And there's someone else on a line closing a circle around you?……That's correct, and I'm actually holding onto that line. And how was the visibility?……Visibility was good. I'd say four to five metres. Did you find anything?……No. Thank you, your Honour, I submit the witness.


P-580 A.J. KENT

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Just one question, Constable. What was the diameter of the hose that you observed that was broken behind the toilet?……It would be at least an inch, inch diameter, yeah. Thank you.



MR SHAPIRO: Sergeant John Pratt, page 307, your Honour.


P-581 J.W. PRATT

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: You are John William Pratt?……That's correct. And you're a Sergeant in Tasmania Police?……That is correct. Where are you - where are you attached to?……Police Marine & Rescue Services in Hobart. How long have you been there for?……Approximately eight years. And what did you do on the morning of the 27th January last year?……I commenced work at Marine & Rescue Services in Hobart. Shortly after starting at 8:00 a.m. I was made aware of a boat that had been reported to be sinking off Short Beach in Sandy Bay. And did you go to that boat?……Yes, I did. How did you get there?……I travelled on the police vessel, Freycinet, with Constable Round. And what did you find when you got to the yacht?……When we got to the yacht, which was attached to a mooring, there was several people on board and two pumps were being used to pump water from with - inside that yacht. And - all right, what did you and Constable Round then do?……After having a brief discussion with the police officers who were already on the yacht I was made aware that there was the possibility that a male person could be missing from the yacht. We then commenced a grid search from the flying bridge of the police vessel, Freycinet, in a southerly direction from where the yacht was actually moored. Can you just explain what a grid search is?……As I said, we were on the flying bridge of the Freycinet, which provides a better view for us. We travelled in a southerly direction from the yacht towards Nutgrove Beach. We then moved to the east a distance and headed back north, parallel to the path we had just come, and then continued that working out in towards the middle of the river. And you said you were on the flying bridge which provides a better view, why is it - how does it provide that better view?…….The flying bridge is basically the upper part of the - well it is the upper part of the vessel, and because of the extra height you're afforded a better vision down onto the water.

P-582 J.W. PRATT

If the witness can be shown P01 please? Are you able to indicate for the jury where you conducted this grid search?…….This was Four Winds, it was basically in this location here, and we travelled on our first path south down past the Casino towards Nutgrove Beach - obviously that's off this map. It's probably a little bit more evident on the smaller map. The one in the bottom right of the map there?…….That's correct. Yes. And - so you'd come down and then, I think you said you've moved slightly to the east?…….That's right, that's pretty well orientated how it was. So we'd gone down past the Royal Yacht Club, past the DSS, past the Casino and then on towards Nutgrove Beach, which would obviously be down here something, and then out to the east towards the centre of the river, and then on a parallel course back up to where we'd started, and then again out to the east, and the continued - and we probably did about four to five passes. Using the map, are you able to estimate what sort of area you covered with your grid search?…….From here down to Nutgrove Beach, you'd be looking at approximately two nautical miles, and we would have probably covered about one and a half out to the east into the river. Does that - would that be off the - off the map there?…….Yes, yes. And does the smaller map help you indicate how far out that would have been?…….……Towards the top area we probably would have been on about the red line, but because of the angle back from Nutgrove Beach we would've been outside the red line towards the bottom. I understand that, thank you. And did you find anything?……No, we saw nothing. Thank you…….Out of the ordinary anyway. All right, what did you do after you'd done that grid search?……We then went back to where the yacht, Four Winds, was moored and I met a number of divers that had come out on another vessel. And -……..But just prior to the divers coming I was also - I also spoke to Kriss Lawler, who was one of the first police officers on the scene. He briefly showed me aboard the vessel, the Four Winds.

P-583 J.W. PRATT

All right. And in terms of the divers, what happened when they - or what was your involvement with the divers?……I am a dive supervisor - a diver and a dive supervisor, but I supervised the dive search underneath the area where the yacht, Four Winds, was moored. Okay, so I assume you didn't have to get in the water to supervise that?……No I did not, I did that from the surface and deployed two divers to actually conduct the search. Okay. Who were they?……Constable C Williams and Constable Russell. And what area was the search - or how was that search conducted?……We used the mooring block that the Four Winds was moored to as a central point, two divers descent, one basically stays on the mooring block as a central reference point, he then provides the other diver with a rope and swims in circles around it. The diver who is on the central point then increases the length of the rope with each complete circle so that the diver who is doing the searching covers an increasing distance out from the mooring block. And in terms of a radius of that circle how big an area was searched?……I kept them going because - because of the weather it was quite easy to see the area they were covering, but I made sure that that search encompassed an area that would've been covered by the scope of the Four Winds had that changed directions on the mooring due to tidal wind, I would say around 75 to 100 metres.

HIS HONOUR: Now 75 to 100 metres is the radius or -

WITNESS: No, that's the diameter from the mooring block.

HIS HONOUR: Diameter, thank you.

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. (Resuming): And you said you were able - because of the weather you were able to see where they were how were you able to do that?……Both were on scuba tanks and the exhaust from the Aga masks that they were using leaves a bubble trail on the surface. So you were able to see on the surface of the water where they were from those bubbles?……That's correct.

P-584 J.W. PRATT

Okay. All right. And you were involved in towing the Four Winds to the Elizabeth Street Pier, is that right?……That's correct. Once the water had been pumped out of it, I'm sure forensic people had done their initial inspection, it was requested by CIB that we move the boat so with the police vessel Freycinet we towed it to the Hobart Ports. Okay. And then the next day you were involved with some diving is that right?……That's correct. How did that happen?……Once again we went back to the mooring where the Four Winds had been moored. We used the same mooring block and another of - mooring blocks in the area as anchor - base points, reference points, and once again we used arc searches to cover the area well around where the boat had been moored. Okay. When you say mooring blocks they're something on the bottom - at the end of the mooring line is that right?……That's correct, normally large train wheels. Okay. And you said this time you did an arc search how is that different to the search you just described?……The first one was an expanding circle search so the diver that was actually doing the searching completes a full circle around the reference point. With an arc search it's the same procedure only the diver does an arc rather than a full circle around the reference point. Okay. And in which direction from the - from the yacht, the Four Winds, was searched?……Pretty well all around again the mooring block of the Four Winds but then we concentrated on an area to the south of where the Four Winds was moored. I wonder if you can show us on the map?…….If this was the Four Winds, using the mooring block there to the south of it, then across the next mooring block and then back up in that direction, and then south back up around in a - so you end up with a diver covering the same area a couple of times to ensure that it's thoroughly searched. So the diver is doing a sort of sweeping an arc from one mooring and then they move to the next and have that as a central point and do another one, is that -…….That's correct, like you - you start in close to the mooring, the same procedure, and depending on the visibility of the water move out swimming an arch, move out swimming an arc, and that will normally go out for, oh, thirty five, forty metres, depending on the clarity of the bottom. Then move to the next reference point, start again in close, out further, and keep going.

P-585 J.W. PRATT

Thank you. Now, and I believe you did a, what's called 'a tow search'?…….Yeah, once we'd moved to the south we basically ran out of fixed reference points, so we tried to increase the area that we could search by tow searching from the police vessel. And how does - how does a tow search work?…….A tow search is a procedure where is a rope is attached to the back of the police vessel to a towbar, it's just a length of steel, and two divers are towed along behind the police vessel on the bottom at a speed of about one and a half to two knots. Okay. And what sort of area was covered when you did that tow search?…….The visibility had been good so it was pretty good. The only problem is because of the increasing depth of the water as we move south the time that the divers could spend on the bottom was decrease, so it effectively became rather ineffective to continue searching that way. How deep did it get?…….We ended up in about twenty three metres. And how deep is it at the Four Winds?…….About eleven. Okay. And how far - well how far from the Four Winds is it that you get to twenty three metres?…….It wasn't all that far, it would be only about a hundred and fifty to two hundred metres to the southeast. Thank you. Now as you said it was difficult when it got deeper, so what sort of search, or what method did you use to overcome that?…….I then set up a drag line search, which was conducted between two police boats. A line comes from each police boat down to a weight and then between the two weights is a line which is approximately fifty metres long and at intervals on that line there are treble hooks attached to it by shark clips. The police boats then travel perpendic - or, sorry, parallel to each other and the weights hold the hook line onto the bottom and it's dragged along the bottom. What area did you search with that method?……Once again we - because of that method of searching it's impossible to go inside the moorings because you'd be picking up mooring lines and mooring blocks, so we stated on the outside, ran south parallel to all the moorings to the casino, spin fifty metres with the outside boat remaining stationary and then run north again.

P-586 J.W. PRATT

So is it fair to say it's essentially the same area you'd already done the other visual search previously or is it different?……Yes, pretty much the same, we didn't go as far down to Nutgrove with the drag line but of course the difference is visual is only on the surface and this concentrates on the seabed. And with all of these searches that you did, did you find anything?……Not of any note, no. And on the 6th - on the 6th February you were also involved with some divers checking the hull of the Four Winds at Goodwood, is that right?……That's correct, we were requested by Hobart CIB again and I travelled with two divers to Prince of Wales Bay and supervised two divers who conducted an underwater search of the hull of the Four Winds. Anything found?……No, nothing. Thank you, your Honour.


P-587 J.W. PRATT

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: The Victorian police assisted you sometime later in doing an additional search using their side-scan process?……That's correct. And they basically went back over the area that you'd already searched either with your divers on the bottom or through the tow method, is that right?……My understanding is yes, however I had nothing to do with the actual sonar process and subsequent searches. Did you have anything to do with the planning, that is arranging for the Victorian divers to come?……No, I didn't. All right. Is it fair to say this, that the river drops out to about twenty three metres not all that far from the mooring of the Four Winds?……That's correct. I think you said probably a hundred to a hundred and fifty metres out?…….That's correct. And then it's fairly consistent, about twenty three to twenty five metres across to the eastern shore?…….Yeah, the average depth through pretty much the entire river is twenty three to twenty five metres, yeah. Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: No re-examination, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, sergeant, you're free to go.

WITNESS: Thank you, your Honour.


MR SHAPIRO: Call Sergeant Paul Steane, please?



HIS HONOUR: Take a seat, sergeant.

WITNESS: Thank you.

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your full name is Paul Samuel Steane?…….That's correct. And you're a sergeant with the Tasmanian Police?…….Yes. And where are you stationed?…….I'm stationed at Search and Rescue Services, I'm the officer in charge of the Police Dive team. How long have you been there for?…….In this particular life since and I had a previous life there also. Do you mean by that you had a previous time -…….Yeah, I was stationed- - when you were -…….- stationed there on a previous time too. Yes. Okay. And if I can take you to the 17th of April last year, were you - did you meet some Victorian divers with some sonar equipment on that day?…….That's right, yes, I met up with Sergeant Greg Barrice and the Victorian Police Underwater Security Team, that was on the Friday, and we spent the next four or five days until Wednesday the 22nd, doing an underwater sonar search of an area at Sandy Bay. And we've heard about how that worked this morning, with the sonar, but how many targets were located as a result of that?……It was about ninety targets that were located over those days and they were put together -they put them together in a list or to catalogue and from that they were prioritised into the most likely targets that would be of interest to us. All right. And what did you do in relation to those most likely targets?……We - from Monday the 20th through to Wednesday 22nd we dived those targets and, yeah, nothing of interest was found. Okay. And when you say you dived them how did - what does that mean exactly?……We gauged the grid references, the GPS positions in the report, and we'd locate that using the GPS on the boat. We'd


put a - put what's known as a shot, which is just a rope with a heavy weight on it and a buoy, so you get that - get it right on the spot, and then the divers go down that shot and from there they do a jackstay search. You attach a rope near the weight and you do circles around and we located - at all the spots we located what we believed was the same target that the sonar had located and we were satisfied with the search. How did you decide what the most likely items were or that - how did you determine which ones that you dived on and which ones that you didn't?……We were largely in the hands of the Victorians in respect to that. Using the equipment at their disposal and the computers they were able to measure the targets and look at the shape of them and decide which ones were the most likely - like some of the targets we located were things like wheelie bins and just larger pieces of rubbish, targets that didn't appear of interest at all, they might be too long, like they'd be things that were obvious anchor drags in the mud or tyres and things like that that were discounted. And - all right. And so what area - how deep did it get, what was it - how deep did the area get that you were searching?……I think the deepest dives we were doing were around 24 to 26 metres. Okay. And what's the visibility like at that depth?……The bottom's composed of fine silt and as you approach the bottom the visibility rapidly decreases to less than a metre. Once you stir the silt up the visibility goes to close enough to zero. Okay. Now is it fair to say without knowing where these items were you wouldn't have been able to find them?……That's correct, to try to locate those items now without the benefit of that catalogue would be next to impossible. And how many of the ninety items are you able to estimate how many were actually dived on?……About a dozen, a dozen to fifteen items were dived on in those days and subsequently in August, Tuesday the th August I think we dived on a further couple of items and they weren't of interest to us either. Thank you. Now is there a reason that a more broad search wasn't conducted?……Yeah, as I stated previously, the visibility at the bottom of the river for searching is - it's very difficult, you can't see much, and a lot of the searching is by hand, you're literally feeling where you're going. On top - on top of that problem is the depth, the divers can only remain at depth for a short time and we're just physically limited with resources, to search a large area would take a long, long time and we just don't have the resources.


Thank you, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson.

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Is that the reason why the side-scan sonar was just deployed in the area that we were shown this morning?……Sorry, which is the reason? Is that the reason, that you didn't have the resources, to basically scan the whole river?……Yes, like we don't have the side-scan sonar abilities of the Victorians and we only had the Victorians for a short period of time and they did what they could in that time. And so am I right in thinking that the reason they scanned the area that they did was because of the limit in their availability? You only had a certain time, didn't you?……Yes. You had to put them somewhere?……Yes, we've got a certain time, we had to start somewhere and that's as far as we got to the job really, yeah. And no one thought to use the side-scanner out in deeper water?……It was certainly thought but it's just a question of you start at the beginning of a job and you keep working and in - in this case we had them for that period of time and that's the area that we searched. If we had them for longer the search would have gone on for longer. Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: No, re-examination, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, thank you, sergeant, you're free to go.


MR ELLIS SC: Call Felicity Ogilvie please, your Honour.



HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes.

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Ms Ogilvie, you're Felicity Kate Ogilvie?…….Yes. You're a journalist with the ABC?…….Yes. And in that capacity on the 13th of March 2009, did you interview the accused, Sue Neill-Fraser?…….Yes. How did the interview come about?…….I called up to ask for an interview and I can't remember if it was Sue or her daughter, Sarah, but one of them called me back to say 'yes' and I went up to the house. I see. Is that usual, that you would go to the subject's house rather than she come to the studio?…….Yes. Good. What did you take with you?…….My notepad and my recorder. And - so you went to her house, do you remember the address or not the precise address, do you remember the street?…….Oh it was in West Hobart in Allison Street. And when you went there was Ms Neill-Fraser present?…….Yes. And was anyone else present?…….Yes, her daughter, Sarah, and I think her - oh Sarah's husband was there at some stage as well. Okay. And did you adjourn to a particular room or place of the house?…….Yes, we went out to the balcony. What took place there?…….Oh we talked, Sue said she wanted to tell me everything, and before I pulled out my recorder to do a formal interview. Okay. And did you make notes there?…….Yes. At that stage, this is a pre-interview conversation really, is it?…….Yes.

Did she mention a phone call she'd received from Richard King on the 26th of January?…….Yes.


What did she say about that please?…….That he called saying that Claire, Mr Chappell's daughter, was suicidal and quite upset and was perhaps going to go down to the boat and Sue was worried about that, so she drove down to check that everything was okay that night. Right. And did she say what she saw when she drove down that night?…….Homeless people with fires down at Sandy Bay. But she said she didn't see anything going on on the yacht so she drove home. Okay. Then after the pre-interview conversation, did you start you - you were going to start your tape-recorder for the formal interview, and did you - did you say anything to Ms Neill-Fraser just before you did?……."Is there anything you don't want to say on tape". And did she answer that?…….She didn't want to talk about Claire because she seemed really concerned about Claire and didn't want that - yeah, people to think badly of Claire, mm. Right. Okay. Hopefully, I'll give you a tape of the interview and play it in a minute. But after - after the interview was concluded what did you do?.......……Probably thanked her for the interview and went back to the office. Okay, and did you speak to someone else?……Yes, I spoke to Inspector Peter Powell because I interviewed him as part of my story as well. In the course of that did you mention something that had been told to you?……Yes, I - I - in the course of us talking about the investigation I asked him something about Sue - Sue going down the night - Yes…….- and he was very surprised and he said, "Oh she told us that she didn't go down that night". Yes, and as a result of that did he ask you to do something?……He asked me to give a statement to the police and I went back to the office and called Sue to let her know and she was very adamant that our conversation about her going down that night was off the record. I thought it was on the record. Yes…….She was adamant that it was off the record and because she was quite upset when I did go to interview her at her house and there

can be mis-communication between people I thought I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that it was off the record, so I told the police, "No, I won't give you a statement", -


Yes…….- and I didn't, and giving evidence today I was subpoenaed to give evidence. Yes. All right, we have a CD which we trust is one of the interview, I wonder if this could be played just for a little way and you might identify the voices on it and see if it's your interview of Friday, the th March, isn't it. INTERVIEW WITH FELICITY OGILVIE PLAYED TO COURT

MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): Okay, do you recognise the voices, Ms Ogilvie?……Yes. And?……It's myself and Sue. And the occasion of the interview we spoke of was the 13th March9?……Yes. Thank you. Resume please. INTERVIEW WITH FELICITY OGILVIE AND ACCUSED CONTINUED

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour, I've no further questions.

HIS HONOUR: Are you tendering that?

MR ELLIS SC: I'm sorry, it looks like I have - I thought I tendered that but Mr Shapiro says no.


MR ELLIS SC: Thank you.



HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Gunson?

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Thank you. Ms Ogilvie you initiated the interview rather than the other way around, correct?……Yes. And to whom did you speak first, did you speak to Ms Neill-Fraser or her daughter?……I can't remember, it was one of them. One of them, all right. And you have no discrete memory now at all?……Of which one I spoke to to organise the interview? Yes……No. Thank you. You said that in this preliminary discussion she said that she saw homeless people with fires, if I said to you that what she said was she had believed that she'd seen some people around with fires would you accept that as being a more accurate account?……I'm pretty sure that she saw - that she said that she saw, but it's very similar words. You wouldn't dispute that what I put to you is a more accurate account?……I don't know which one is more accurate, sorry. All right, thank you. You said you spoke to Detective Inspector Powell after you returned to your office and you mentioned that Ms Neill-Fraser had said she'd been down to the yacht that night, had you spoken with Detective Inspector Powell before you went to Ms Neill-Fraser's home?……Not sure. Did you tell him you were going to go there?……I can't remember. All right. And you were going to interview him, were you, as a part of this program that you were planning?……Yes. Did what you just played ever go to air?……Parts of it. As a journalist you interview someone and then you take grabs to put to air. And that was television or radio?……Radio. Thank you. And was Detective Inspector Powell interviewed as well for that show?……Yes. All right. Now in your interview you said this to Ms Neill-Fraser:

Now the police say that on the night that - that your partner spent on the boat they saw some - that a witness saw someone row out in a dinghy.


That's what you put to her as coming from the police, correct?……Yes. Who told you that?……That was in a media release, either earlier that week or the week before. In a media release from the police?……Yes. There were news stories about it, yes. And did you have that media release with you at the time, just tell me yes or no?……No. Thank you. I think you also said that she was upset when you first went to the house can you describe what you saw or what she said that gave you that impression?……She was trembling a lot and also when I asked her how she felt she said she felt terrible because she'd lost everything and she'd lost her yacht. Yes. And her partner?……Yes. And she appeared to you to be visibly distressed?……When I first came into the house, yes. But you, no doubt with your journalistic skills, calmed her down a little bit so that you could have a decent interview with her?……No, she offered me a cup of tea. Right. Did that appear - and did she share one with you?……Mmm. And calmed down a bit?……Well she wasn't hysterical but she seemed upset. I'm not suggesting she was but she manifested signs of being upset?……Yes. Yes, thank you. I've no further questions.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Now you've mentioned reports in the media can I show you two documents please. Are they extracts from the Mercury of the 10th and 11th March?……Yes. Could you read them and tell us if they are the reports in the media to which you're referred?

MR GUNSON SC: I think she said actually that what she had read was a media release from the police rather than what she read in the Mercury is my note.

MR ELLIS SC: And there were reports in the Mercury, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well just a minute. She said that what she put to the accused was in a media release from the police, that's what she said in cross-examination, she hasn't said anything in relation to media reports but only a media release.

MR ELLIS SC: My recollection (indistinct words) -

MR GUNSON SC: Your Honour, I've checked my junior's note, they comply with yours and I even made a note at the time, and my note reads "In a media release from the police" -

MR ELLIS SC: Oh, there's undoubtedly a mention of a media release from the police, but she also said, "media reports" -

WITNESS: That's what I think I said.

HIS HONOUR: Well no, just a minute - just a minute.

MR ELLIS SC: I'm happy to wait for the transcript or play back the tape.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well we'll send the jury to the jury room and play back the - play back the cross-examination.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, go to the jury please, ladies and gentlemen.


HIS HONOUR: Now it's about the middle of the cross-examination, but it wasn't long we may as well have all of it.



HIS HONOUR: Can you just stop there - yes. Yes, well I think, Mr Ellis is right and my note and the other note referred to weren't thorough so the witness can therefore be asked about news stories in the media. Would you submit otherwise, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, get the jury back.



HIS HONOUR: Well, ladies and gentlemen, the witness in her - when being cross-examined referred not only to a police media release but also to news stories about a person going out in a dinghy and I'll therefore permit Mr Ellis to ask the questions that he was trying to ask. Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. (Resuming): I think they're the extracts from the Mercury of the 10th and 11th March, Ms Ogilvie, have you had a chance to read them now?……Yes. And do they mention rowing the dinghy or does it simply mention movements of a dinghy?……I don't see them talking about rowing, no. So is it possible that that's something that you have filled in your mind, think dinghy think rowing?……Yes. Okay, thank you. I tender those, your Honour.

EXHIBIT #P60 - EXTRACTS FROM THE MERCURY - TAKEN IN I've nothing further, thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Now should these Mercury stories be read aloud to the jury or should they just have the opportunity to read them when they're in the jury room at the end of the trial?

MR ELLIS SC: Well they're really tendered as to an absence of a word rather than -

HIS HONOUR: Right. The point of - the reason you're relying on them is that they don't mention rowing?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: They mention a dinghy but not its means of propulsion?

MR ELLIS SC: Indeed.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MR GUNSON SC: Before the witness goes could I have a look at those please, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Yes, show those to Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Are you content for the witness to leave?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Ms Ogilvie, you're now free to go.




MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour, I have no more witnesses ready, my learned friend's disappointed me about diving.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Well in that case the jury can make their affirmation and the Court will adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR ELLIS SC: There are just a couple of logistical matters.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well the jury can make their affirmation and I'll then retire for a couple of minutes and anybody who wants to leave may leave at that point.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Back at ten tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.




HIS HONOUR: Right, what do we need to discuss, Mr Ellis?


MR ELLIS SC: Well one - one problem is subject to, I think, to an order from your Honour, that is the witness, David Casson, who is the last of the Queensland ones has been in hospital and just about to be or just has been discharged, and my learned friend will, in the circumstances, agree to an order his evidence be taken on video link, if your Honour, can make that -

HIS HONOUR: Now, just - he travelled on the voyage with Peter Stevenson, didn't he?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour, yeah.

HIS HONOUR: And to what extent is credibility likely to be in issue?

MR ELLIS SC: About the same extent as Stevenson's, as I understand it, he will give evidence - perhaps not as strong as Stevenson's, to the effect that Ms Neill-Fraser indicated that the relationship with Mr Chappell and that she would be thinking of buying his share.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well you're - you're asking for an order permitting his evidence to be taken by video link from Queensland because the - he's unwell and has just come out of hospital, and that's not opposed, Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: Not opposed, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well I - I order that the evidence of David Casson may be taken by video link.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: When do you have in mind doing that?

MR ELLIS SC: We thought Thursday morning.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well if you speak to my associate we'll see what can be done about a video link on Thursday morning.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Now, what else do we need to discuss?


MR ELLIS SC: Well we're going through very quickly, as you might have noticed -


MR ELLIS SC: So quickly to the extent that I was going to ask for a half day's lay day in order to organise the forensic evidence, because I'm very hopeful that - now my learned friend's kindly indicated that continuity isn't an issue and we might be able to get an agreed document, pretty much along the lines of the forensic biology report that - with additional material as to where the samples were taken and maybe something in short form about their continuity to the forensic lab.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. When did you want the half day off?

MR ELLIS SC: Well I think we've got a little bit of time; maybe I could have a start at it today.

HIS HONOUR: Oh, I see.

MR ELLIS SC: No, I might - I'm really signalling it at the moment as a possibility, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well if you're going to be playing - you've got two interviews of more than three hours each with the accused, haven't you?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes. Oh that's right, I know I can -

MR GUNSON SC: Close to four hours, your Honour.

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour. There is though mention of forensic matters which wouldn't be in evidence, I suppose, usual assertions from police about what tests have revealed.

HIS HONOUR: So the forensic matters really should come before the interviews, is that it?

MR ELLIS SC: That's really so, yes.

HIS HONOUR: The scientific matters, yes. All right, so - well you're not - can I just do a bit of a roll call. Are you going to call Detective Puurand?


MR ELLIS SC: No, I don't think so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And are you going to call Detective Sinnitt?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And Detective Sice?

MR ELLIS SC: Probably not. Only if something unexpected happens to, say, the credibility of others.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Constable Jackson?

MR ELLIS SC: I don't believe so, I don't think he rings a bell.

MR SHAPIRO: He's the exhibits officer.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh he's the exhibits officer, so we hope we don't have to come to him.

HIS HONOUR: All right, Mr Kimber?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, but he should be very brief.

HIS HONOUR: Detective Sergeant Conroy?


HIS HONOUR: And Inspector Powell?

MR ELLIS SC: Probably.

HIS HONOUR: Fred Barrett, Naval Architect?


HIS HONOUR: Dr Herzeld you're not calling?


HIS HONOUR: What about Meaghan Vass?

MR ELLIS SC: Well that's one of the problems I wanted to mention to you.



MR ELLIS SC: At the moment there is an order that she - and she was bound over to appear on Monday.

HIS HONOUR: Or sent away rather than bound over, yes.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh I see, yes, that's right. And so if it looks like we will have finished the evidence, and it may not be the case, I wish to raise with your Honour if we could serve another final notice on her for perhaps earlier than that return, that it wouldn't be cutting across anything that your Honour's ordered or directed.

HIS HONOUR: Well I don't think I've got anything in my papers at all that tells me -

MR ELLIS SC: You may have it in the supplementary volume, your Honour, I think. There's certainly nothing from her. On maybe it got into the main volume - what happened, your Honour, was that there was a piece of DNA or a swab from DNA - DNA was found on the deck of - I think it's the deck of the Four Winds -


MR ELLIS SC: - analysis didn't match it with anyone, but then Ms Vass fell foul of the law and when her DNA was taken it did match that. And so we have this piece of DNA that seems to belong to her on the deck of the Four Winds and no one quite knows how it has got there. She has been uncooperative, and to be fair, I think she suffers from some form of Aspergers or something like that, but she hasn't been cooperative with us or police in - truly cooperative in furnishing a proof of her whereabouts and movements. So the point about - oh my learned Mr Shapiro points out that - that she's mentioned at 1049, the DNA profiling of her.

HIS HONOUR: Right. Okay. I - I sent her - I excused her until Monday of next week, did I?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, that's right, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And you think the Crown case now might close sooner than that, even with a half day off?


MR ELLIS SC: Perhaps not with a half day off, but I'm not sure that I need the half day off, I see how I battle Manthey this afternoon.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well how long are the - but the -

MR ELLIS SC: The interviews are about eight hours in total.

HIS HONOUR: Well there's - there's two days. If you call everybody else tomorrow and then play the interviews that's the week.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh pretty much then, yes, yes your Honour, it could be.

HIS HONOUR: Well I suppose - well what -

MR ELLIS SC: It's okay, I just raised it, your Honour, that if it was appropriate to seek - to make a final -

HIS HONOUR: A second final notice.

MR ELLIS SC: - a second final notice -

HIS HONOUR: Well I happen to have the 1996 Act here so I'll have a look at it. Well if I've excused her until next Monday I must have the right to get her back, it's a question of -

MR ELLIS SC: Well I think I've got the right to get her back under the Act but I wouldn't like to do it and then your Honour decide that I'm in contempt or something close to it but (indistinct words) your order.

HIS HONOUR: Well when would you like her back, Friday?

MR ELLIS SC: If it emerges - yes, if it emerges in the next couple of days that we might finish the evidence then I might want her back Friday or we might be cutting it so fine that it makes no difference, that's all.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Mr Gunson, do you want to be heard as to this?

MR GUNSON SC: Did she actually turn up on Monday?

MR ELLIS SC: Oh, yeah.


MR GUNSON SC: She was here?

HIS HONOUR: She - can I have the transcript please.

MR GUNSON SC: Well my only concern about - I'm not troubled about when she comes, your Honour, I'm only troubled about am I going to get a proof and my friend may well say, "Yes, you will depending on whether she cooperates on the day or not".

HIS HONOUR: - I haven't found it in the transcript but my note is that I ordered her to return at 9:40am - 9:45am on Monday the 4th of October.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, that's my recollection.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well - well Mr Gunson, there would be nothing wrong - nothing unlawful or impolite about Mr Ellis serving her with a final notice requiring her to attend sometime this week, if he felt he needed to, would there?

MR GUNSON SC: Not at all, your Honour, I don't seek -


MR GUNSON SC: - to dissuade him or you.

HIS HONOUR: No, well I've - all right, well I certainly don't think that it would be unlawful or impolite if she's served with a final notice requiring her to attend one day later this week rather than the th of October. Obviously, it would be polite to tell her that - that the trial has moved more quickly than the Crown and I anticipated. But Mr Gunson, you want a proof of what she's going to say?

MR GUNSON SC: I'd like that.

HIS HONOUR: And Mr Ellis, do you know what she's going to say?

MR ELLIS SC: No, no I -


MR ELLIS SC: - all I know is I asked Mr Gunson if this is an issue and he said it was, and so there she'll be, he can make the issue with her.


HIS HONOUR: Well if anybody wants a Basha inquiry they can ask me.

MR GUNSON SC: That's what I was going to suggest, if that's the appropriate course to go when we get her here and see what happens.

HIS HONOUR: Yeah. And it may be next Monday or may be sooner.

MR GUNSON SC: Yes. Yes, I think a Basha inquiry is the only way. Well it's quite clear from the papers that your Honour's got in the last volume, at 1049 or thereabouts, that she simply hasn't cooperated with the police. Her DNA is on the boat, it's been found there. There may be any number of answers as to how it got it but she's not providing them.

MR ELLIS SC: Of course, she mightn't be able to also. There's no reason to think she's able to provide an explanation, frankly, you know, she could have spat on the Constitution Dock, someone walked on it and it came off their shoes - it's - but I asked my learned friend before the trial, "Is this in issue?" and he told me it was, therefore I have sought to make her available.

MR GUNSON SC: Well that's not an explanation.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well we'll leave that in mid air. So the Crown case looks like finishing Friday or Monday.

MR ELLIS SC: I think so, your Honour. Now one more difficulty, -


MR ELLIS SC: - and that is - I don't think it's a problem to raise it at the moment. In the interviews there's a lot of - quite a deal of mention of Mr Triffett, which is fine, and Ms Hanson who is not a witness.



MR ELLIS SC: In one part it's asserted by police, perhaps unwisely, that Ms Hanson confirms this and in other parts there's lengthy excursions on the part of the accused into the character of Ms Hanson and Mr Triffett in a way that wasn't put to the latter here today. Now my learned friend and I - I'll simply raise it with him as to whether he will want those parts excised in whole or in part and it could be that if he wants the favourable mentions of Ms Hanson excised I'd want the unfavourable ones excised of course, but it's also a matter for your Honour in the end too because you might take the view that it's simply inadmissible and shouldn't be there.

HIS HONOUR: I'll give a ruling if I need to give a ruling, but I'd first like you to try to agree on what should stay and what should go.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, but if things are to go then our timings will be off because they're such lengthy things that to edit them will be difficult, will take time.

HIS HONOUR: Well we - you mean they're - well if I need to give a ruling then there'll have to be a delay while the DVDs are edited, is that it?

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well you might get that half day that you were timid about asking for. If that has to happen the trial just has to go on hold and that's something we've got to live with, but I would think that while the first interview is being played the second can be being edited it's a - it's a question of -

MR ELLIS SC: They both suffer the same vice, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Oh, sure, but as I understand it you can have - well we'll cross the bridge when we come to it but once I've given my ruling in relation to the first interview someone can start getting an edited version of that ready and then I can give a ruling in - any rulings I need to give in relation to the second interview. I'll be surprised if more time is needed to get the second interview ready. Once the first one is ready it can be being played while the second one is being edited.

MR ELLIS SC: Certainly, your Honour. I only raised it, and I don't say this in anyway disrespectfully, that because some judges will take different views of their obligations to exclude - hunt and exclude all forms of inadmissible evidence wherever it's found.

HIS HONOUR: Well I won't -


MR ELLIS SC: I'm just stating the view that -

HIS HONOUR: I won't indicate a -

MR ELLIS SC: (indistinct comment)

HIS HONOUR: Well I don't propose to search for anything that hasn't been objected to that ought to go but if counsel want me to - if I'm going to be asked to give rulings as to what stays and what goes then the sooner counsel can narrow the scope of any dispute the better.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Now is there anything else we need to discuss?

MR ELLIS SC: Not from my point of view, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: No, all right, well the Court will adjourn till 10 o'clock tomorrow.

<THE COURT ADJOURNED Table of Contents


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 611

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 614

<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: ................................................... 618


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 620

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 624


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 629

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 631

<MEAGHAN ELIZABETH VASS AFFIRMED ...................... 633

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO:..................................................... 633

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 634


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 638

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: ................................................ 656


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 676

<XXN - MR GUNSON: ..................................................... 681

<FUR EXN - MR ELLIS SC:............................................... 682

<FUR XXN - MR GUNSON SC: .......................................... 684

<CARL GROSSER CALLED AND AFFIRMED..................... 685

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: ..................................................... 685

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC:................................................ 693 Exhibit List

EXHIBIT #P61 - FURTHER AGREED FACTS........................ 627

EXHIBIT #P62 - REPORT OF DEBRA McHOUL DATED 12TH JUNE9.......................................................................... 640

EXHIBIT #P63 - BAG AND JACKET ................................... 677



HIS HONOUR: Yes, take a seat. Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. I call Phillip Kimber.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat.

WITNESS: Thank you.


<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Kimber, you're Phillip Kimber?…….Yes, sir. Is that your full name?…….Phillip Anthony Kimber. And you're a legal practitioner?…….Yes. And a partner of the august firm of Butler McIntyre & Butler?…….Indeed. At 20 Murray Street, Hobart?…….Yes. In that capacity did you act for Mr Robert Chappell?…….Yes. And in 2002, early 2002, did you prepare a will for him?…….Yes. And was that will superseded in 2004 on his instructions?…….Yes.

Thank you. And that is, by superseded, you made a new will?…….Yes, the old one was revoked and a new one was written up and signed.


Thank you. And he executed that will that you prepared?……Yes. Are you able to tell us the terms of the will in general terms?……Yes. I think it was dated about 20th October 2004, it revoked all previous wills, which is a standard clause in wills, to make sure it was the last one. It appointed one of my partners, Gary Ronald Grant, and myself as his executors and trustees. It then stated that if Susan Neill-Fraser survived him by thirty days his material possessions, including his house, car and other things of that nature would go to her absolutely, the balance of the estate, again if Susan Neill-Fraser survived him by thirty days, was to go to meet all expenses, debts and to be divided fifty percent to Susan Neill-Fraser, forty percent to his three children and ten percent to his sister, Caroline. That's forty percent between the children, so they'd each receive a third of forty percent should they survive, is that right?……Yes, correct. And then there were further provisions that if Susan Neill- Fraser didn't survive him by thirty days it was to go, I think, ninety percent between five children, that is his three children and Susan Neill-Fraser's two children, equally. Yes……Which I worked out I think is about seventeen percent each or so, and ten percent was to go to his sister, Caroline. Thank you. So the primary gift to Ms Neill-Fraser was of material possessions, including the house, car and furniture, what other things would be in the estate?……Other than material possessions? Yes…….He had unpaid employment entitlements of which I discovered later were in the order of about twenty six to thirty thousand dollars, he had superannuation - a superannuation account or two accounts, which totalled approximately eight hundred thousand dollars and although I'm not certain about where that would go he had previously signed authorities to the superannuation trustees directing that his superannuation be dealt with as if it's part of the estate and in the will it said that the superannuation was to be treated as part of the residue so it would have gone in accordance with the proposition I said before. Yes. Was there any special provision to be made for any mortgage over his house?……Any debts including mortgage debts over his


house were to be paid out of the residue before distribution of the residue. Thank you. Am I right to understand that the superannuation can't be a hundred percent certain to be dealt with in accordance with the will, that there is some discretion in trustees usually?……I haven't enquired of the superannuation and the trustees so I don't know what the position - and it varies. I think if the express written authorities which he'd given, and I know he did do something in the year 2000, if he'd done some more recently than that they would probably be binding on the superannuation trustees and they would have to pay it to his estate. If not then they may have a discretion but they'd be strongly persuaded to deal with it in the way he'd expressed in his will. Yes. So he did everything he could by way of will and other declaration to your knowledge to have the superannuation dealt with in accordance with the will?……Yes. Thank you. And was there any further will after that?……No. Did you see him after that?……I don't believe so. Okay…..And I might say I've seen him over the last twenty or so years I would have expected if he wanted to change his will he would have come here and I'm not aware of anyone suggesting another will. No, that's right. And is it practice between lawyers that if another will is drawn that they'll notify those who hold the previous will?……They would. Thank you…….Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Mr Kimber, how long did you spend with Ms Neill-Fraser when she came to see you on the 12th February?……Forty five minutes to an hour and a quarter, I'm guessing. You're guessing - don't lawyers normally make notes about how much time they spend seeing somebody?…….Yes, sir. And that's for the purpose being able, no doubt, to charge somebody in due course for that professional time?…….One of the reasons. That's one of the reasons, isn't it? Now do you recall how long you actually spent with you - you've got basically a half hour gap in what in what you've told us - forty five minutes to an hour and a quarter?…….No better than that. Did you bring your file with you today?…….Yes, sir. Well would you check your file and see whether you've made a file note of how long you spent with her on the 12th of February9?…….I don't have the file with me it's in the witness room. Can the witness go and get it, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, could you go and get it please, Mr Kimber we'll wait.

WITNESS: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Kimber -

WITNESS: The clerk's getting it, sir.

HIS HONOUR: Oh, I see, thank you.

WITNESS: 10:00am to 12:00 noon.

MR GUNSON SC: (Resuming): So you spent two hours with her - and what you told us a minute ago was just a guess, wasn't it?…….Yes - oh well, a reasoned guess. A reasoned guess from a man who is on his oath - all right, two hours you spent with her and you had a long conversation with her about matters pertaining to the boat, didn't you?…….Yes.

And you were given the history of the boat?…….Yes.


MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, it seems to be simply an attempt to lead hearsay.

HIS HONOUR: Well I don't know where it's leading yet but if - as a general rule any information imparted by the accused to Mr Kimber would be hearsay, for it to be admissible it needs to fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Please go on, Mr Gunson.

MR GUNSON SC: Thank you, your Honour. (Resuming): There was a long discussion with her about a whole lot of issues pertaining to the boat, just say yes or no?……Yes. Thank you. And there was a long discussion with her about her relationship with Mr Chappell?……No. There was at least some discussion about her relationship with Mr Chappell, Mr Kimber?……Yes. Thank you. You were, I suspect, more interested in finding out what the assets of Mr Chappell's estate might be if he in fact is deceased so you could move towards applying for probate, is that correct, in due course?……Yes. One of the things you have to do is to find out what the assets are?……Yes. Now you wrote to Ms Neill-Fraser I think on the 6th February following a telephone call from her and basically invited her to contact you so you could discuss issues with her pertaining to the supposed estate?……Yes, sir. What you did was quite normal and quite usual?……Yes, sir. You'd identified her as one of the significant beneficiaries under the will, correct?……Correct. Now when she came to see you did you provide her with a copy of the will or had one been provided at an earlier date to her?……I reflected on that when I gave a statement to the police and I couldn't recall whether I gave her a copy or not and I believe I did not. Right, but you explained to her in significant detail what the will contained?……Yes.


Did she at any stage tell you that she'd already seen a copy, that is that Bob Chappell had shown her a copy of this particular will?……I don't believe she did. You didn't ask her?……I don't recall expressly asking her. Thank you. But in any event, you went through it and explained it to her?…….I believe so. Well you say you believe so, do you have a memory of doing it?…….Why I say that is, I met her again with somebody - with a financial advisor and she seemed to be uncertain about the terms of the will in April. That was in April - just concentrate please on -…….Mm hm. - the meeting of the 6th of February. Have a look at your file and see whether there's a note there as to whether you discussed with her the issue as to whether she had a copy of the will or had seen a copy of the will at an earlier date?…….No, there's no note about discussing the terms of the will, nor providing a copy of it. Thank you. Do you make quite lengthy notes of your conversation with Ms Neill-Fraser on the 2nd - sorry - the 6th of February?…….The 12th of February? Sorry, yes, thank you, the 12th of February?…….Yes. And did you have them typed up?…….Yes. And did you send them to her?…….Yes, I did. And with a covering letter?…….Yes. Did you ask her to review your notes?…….Yes, sir. To make any changes or additions?……Yes, sir. And did she ask you to make any changes or additions?……No. Were the notes returned to you signed or anything like that?……No. Thank you. You have previously said that during the meeting on the th February that you, "Don't recall Susan asking for a copy of


Bob's will or of me providing one", does that assist you in your recollection?……That's my recollection. Thank you. And subsequently in April you had a meeting with Ms Neill-Fraser and a financial adviser at your office, is that right?……Yes, sir. Thank you. And at that stage there were some discussions about the procedures that would have to be invoked before probate could be granted?……Yes, sir. Yes, thank you. I've no further questions of Mr Kimber.




<REXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. You've been asked about a letter you wrote on the 6th February, Mr Kimber, and it was asked, "Did you invite her to contact you", by that letter?……Yes, I did. Was that a letter that you wrote to her without any previous contact or had you in fact had contact with her?……She had telephoned me on the 29th January and mentioned that Bob was missing and there was concern about that, fear for his life, and that's why I wrote to her and advised her. Thank you. So the 6th February wasn't a contact initiated by you it was a follow up to one initiated by her, is that right?……Yes, sir. Thank you. And in that letter did you make a presumption, or assumption, about her having a copy of the will?……Having? A copy of the will……Um, no. I suppose if - no, I didn't make an assumption. Do you have the letter with you, a file copy?……Yeah, which is a letter of what date? The 6th February 2009……"I presume you have a copy of Robert's will", I said in the letter. I'm sorry, you're reading from that and you said in it, "I presume you have a copy of Robert's will"?......Yes. Thank you. And in your subsequent dealings with her it seems that she didn't correct that presumption, is that right?……Except until April when, as I say, she didn't seem to understand the terms of the will. All right…….But no, she didn't ring up and ask for a copy of it or say, "No, I don't have one". Yes. And your meeting with her proceeded without that presumption being displaced?……Correct. And was the meeting of the 12th - sorry, 21s t April more to explain the terms of the will rather than supply a copy?……It was to deal with financial issues and assets associated with the estate and to work to preserve the assets and make sure they're protected.


Yep…….It wasn't immediately about the terms of the will, it came up but it wasn't - wasn't the sole cause or sole discussion. So it's the case, is it, that from the 6th February you let Ms Neill- Fraser know that you presumed she had a copy and you have no note or recollection of her asking for a copy of the will?……Yes. Thank you…….Thank you. Nothing further, thank you, your Honour.





HIS HONOUR: Take a seat, and could you leave those papers face down unless you're asked to look at them please? Yes?

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Thank you. Mr Barrett, you're Frederick Charles Barrett?…….Yes. You are the principal of Fred Barrett Yacht Design and Naval Architecture Pty Ltd?…….Yes. You're - you possess a - sorry, you attained a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Naval Architecture?…….That's correct. And do you work as a naval architect?…….I do. And how long have you done so?…….About fifteen years. Are you a member of the Institute of Engineers of Australia?…….Yes. Thank you. In 2009, did you complete a task at the request of Tasmania Police?…….I did. What was that?…….To investigate the sinkage rate or timeframe for the yacht, Four Winds. And just in general terms, what - what did you?…….Basically we deduced a volume of flood or volume between the static waterline of the vessel and how it sort of was found, I guess, and worked out the volume. Worked out a sinkage time, based on two openings that were found onboard, which were two pipes, and deduced the timeframe, I guess. Okay. Did you take measurements of two openings onboard?…….Yes, we did, yes. Thank you. Can I show you - this is P03, your Honour - photograph - is that one of the openings that you've referred to?…….It is. And did you measure the diameter of that pipe?…….Yeah, the ID was an inch and a half, thirty eight point one mil.

HIS HONOUR: ID meaning, internal diameter?

WITNESS: That's correct.



MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): Thank you. And do you recall where that pipe was located?…….Oh that was in the head, in the toilet location on board the yacht. Why do yachtsmen call it 'the head' - I probably shouldn't ask?…….Mean the head - no, probably shouldn't ask. All right. And if you could also now be shown, I'm sorry, P -

HIS HONOUR: P47 perhaps.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes - 55, your Honour, please. P55 is the last set in the other volume and it's photograph 17. Oh no, wasn't that tendered separately? It was tendered separately. I'm sorry, your Honour's no doubt right, it was a bit taken out.

HIS HONOUR: I think we might have it twice, do we? Do we have it again as P55, photo 17.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: No, it's P47, it's photo 17 from that series.

MR ELLIS SC: That's right, thank you, your Honour. (Resuming): Oh you have it, can you hold it up, please, Mr Barrett, so we're all on the same page of this. That's the photograph you have in front of you, does that show the other -………It does, yeah, it's a three quarter inch ID - Three quarter inch internal diameter?……That's correct. Right, and when you say that what do you refer to, do you see it on the photograph that you're referring to? I see you're pointing to a hose that comes out of the green -……..Yeah, it comes out of a seacock and it's not connected to anything. No, in fact it's a very short stub of a hose, isn't it?……Yeah, that's right. Thank you. All right, so armed with those measurements what other information did you collect?……I guess we determined an approximate flotation of the yacht when it was found at rest, so in its

sinking state, so we could deduce a floodable volume let's say of .58 cubic metres, I think from memory, and -


Yes. Just speak up a little bit…….Oh so we determined a volume, we know what the slowest flow rate coming in through these two hoses would be for a given head of pressure, we also know what the fastest flow in rate would be for another given head of pressure in a sinking form so from that we can approximate a timeframe slow and fast knowing that we've got a yacht of thirty thousand kilos, thirty five tonne of weight, that's wanting to sink pretty rapidly, so it'll tend to be the fastest of those two timeframes in terms of flow rate, so we came up with a rate between X and Y and that was that. Okay. And what else is factored in before we get to the rate?……Well the permeability of everything inside the vessel was taken into account. We've got a floodable volume in a real sense plus we've got furniture and accommodation, things like that, that take up a little bit of that volume, so that was allowed for. And did you have a photograph of how low the yacht was at some particular time?……Yes, we were provided with a photo from Tasmania Police which, for us, gave us a fairly good indication of the final floatation at a given time plus we took some measurements internally also and modelled the yacht's hull to get a fairly good approximate figure. Right. P22, if the witness if he could be shown that, it's a single photograph in the smaller volume. Would you hold that up for us again, Mr Barrett. Is that the photograph you were given?……That's correct. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: That's Tab 7 of the blue volume.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): And did you also have some estimate given to you by police who'd been - …..Yeah, that's correct. They indicated the internal flood levels within the yacht and that sort of allowed us to cross check a bit of our outside volume information also. Right. And then you applied various calculations, which I don't think you need to go into, and determine a timeframe to reach the position we see on the photograph?……Yes, an approximate timeframe for an approximate flooded level.


Given that water was coming in through the two inlets you've identified?……That is correct. And what was that timeframe?……Between I think nine and twelve hours. Okay. And do I understand you to say that because of the weight of the vessel you think it's more likely to pass the time - ……Yes, generally speaking. There will be a little bit of momentum as it's wanting to sink, the flow rate will increase as it wants to sink, there will be some equilibrium and there's a few other factors, it's quite a complicated thing to determine so hence we approximate those timeframes. Yes, okay. And when you - when you're calculating the volume I presume that's some sort of an approximation given the material you had to work with?……Yes. Yes, that's right, based on the evidence that we see on the outside that shows us a particular floodable plane and based on the evidence that we received by Tasmania Police, again, we understand a floodable plane internally, so we'd have to cross-reference those and make sure they sort of make sense, which they did. Yeah.…….And away we go. So did you estimate, and it is an estimate that -…….Yes. - approximately eleven forty five eight cubic metres -…….That's right. - of water had entered?…….Yes. But if - would it be the case that if you were a cubic metre out either way that alter by about an hour the - the sinking time?…….Yeah, between forty five minutes and an hour - Yeah.…….- depending on the flow rate. Okay. And is it possible that - is that margin for error in your calculation?…….Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, Mr Barrett.



<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: If I could just follow up on what Mr Ellis has asked you; forty five minutes to one hour per cubic metre alters the flow rate accordingly - so one hour's water coming more water or less water, you're going to get a cubic rate difference?…….Yeah, that's right. All right. And that in turn, the amount of water in obviously affects your calculations as to the time it takes -…….Yeah, the - - from when the seacock was first opened - and of course, one of the impossible things for you to know is whether the two entry points, and I'll use that term loosely, were opened at the same time?…….That's correct. So if, for instance, the seacock was opened just by way of example, at 10:00pm and the vessel started to take water, and then at a later time, to encourage the sinking the other hose was cut in the toilet, that would throw your calculations out completely, wouldn't it?…….Yes. And make them quite meaningless?…….Not necessarily. No, but it would throw them out dramatically, wouldn't it?…….Without modelling it, I can't give you a definitive answer. But logically, you're going to have a slower process, aren't you?…….Yes. And the slower the process - I'll withdraw that - if you have a slower process, the time will be extended?…….That's correct. Right. So at the end of the day your model is based on both entry points being opened at the same time - correct?…….Yes. You have to answer because this is all being recorded and will be transcribed. So both entry points being opened together, that's the basic hypothesis behind your model, isn't it?…….That's correct. And you have also hypothesised a particular flow coming through?…….That's correct. Yes. So on your scenario as you model it you say you believe that the yacht had been taking water for about between nine to twelve hours?……Correct. But it could be in between, say, seven hours to fourteen hours?……Possible.


Possibly. So at the end of the day, despite all your calculations, it's still an inaccurate science that you're applying?……It's an approximation. It's only an approximation, and your calculations were based on discussions with Tasmania Police as to what certain officers saw as to water levels?……Correct. Did anybody actually take you on board and mark, for instance, on the wall of the yacht and the side of the - inside where the water had come to?……Yes. They did, thank you……Did they mark it exactly, no, they pointed it out. They pointed it out to you, and again that affects your calculations, I mean a few inches either up or down makes a big difference when you look at the total volume, doesn't it?……Yes. Correct?……Yes. Mm, it'd make a substantial difference?……Not necessarily substantial. Ideally what you needed, I suppose, was to see the boat at the very point it was discovered with the water sitting inside and somebody conveniently goes down through the water, turns off the seacock so you've got a constant volume, correct?……Ideally, yes. That's the ideal situation and your figures if prepared would be more accurate on the scenario that I've just pointed out?……That's correct. Right, so you wouldn't say to the jury on any stretch of the imagination that your figures of nine to twelve hours are accurate, what you say is it's an approximation and it could be less than that, it could be greater than that, but you just don't know?……Correct. Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions.






MR ELLIS SC: I have some agreed facts, your Honour - some agreed facts I can show your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: I seek to read those, but in fact the witnesses to whom these refer, I propose to call after another witness. Further agreed facts:


MR ELLIS SC: Your Honour, I'll next seek to call -

HIS HONOUR: Well just a minute? The memorandum headed "Further Agreed Facts" will be marked as an exhibit.

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Now there's about fifty pages of material annexed to that, Mr Ellis -

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: - is that going to be referred to by witnesses that you're going to call?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, your Honour, and hopefully explained.

HIS HONOUR: And I don't think the jury's yet heard of Meghan Vass, but the - and I think I can tell the plan is that she's a witness who will be called at some stage in the next few days.

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, perhaps - perhaps today, but -

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MR ELLIS SC: - while we're speaking of her, could I caution the press that identification of her might breach the Children and Young Persons and Their Families Act.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well I'm sure they've heard that. Now - so the position is that there's a fifty page exhibit and rather than


getting you to read it out, the plan is that it will be referred to and will be available in the jury room at the end of the trial?

MR ELLIS SC: I will have copies for the jury when the witnesses go through which will be Mr McKenzie and Mr Grosser. First I wish to call Ms McHoul.


MR ELLIS SC: As I indicated to your last night we may need a little time and I think I will need please about a quarter of an hour with Ms McHoul just to finish briefing her which I wasn't able to do this morning.

HIS HONOUR: So do you want that now or -

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, please, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well look we might take the morning break and adjourn until 11 o'clock, would that be convenient, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. Well the jury can make their affirmation, we'll take the break early, and the Court will then adjourn until 11 o'clock.




P-629 M. E. VASS

HIS HONOUR: All right, well Mr Gunson you'd like to proceed with a Basha enquiry and to do that now?

MR GUNSON SC: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well that's how we'll proceed. Meaghan Vass can be called.


HIS HONOUR: Ms Vass, as you're probably aware we thought we'd not need you till next week but that changed so thank you for coming in today and for technical reasons what we're going to do is get you to give some evidence without the jury being here to hear it and then probably you'll be asked to give evidence again with the jury here to hear it, okay, so that's what's happening. Yes, Mr Shapiro?

<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour. Is your full name Meaghan Elizabeth Vass?……Yes. And is your date of birth the 14th October 1993?……Yes. Thank you. If the witness can be shown P3 photo 2 please, it's the first one in that bundle. Have you ever been aboard the yacht that's depicted in that photograph?……No. Thank you. In January and February - January and February 2009 do you remember if you went to the wharf area here in Hobart?……No. Constitution Dock area?……No. So is it the case that you don't remember if you went there or you remember that you didn't go there or - ……I don't remember. Okay.

HIS HONOUR: Were you living in Hobart early last year?


HIS HONOUR: Yes, go on Mr Shapiro.

P-630 M. E. VASS

MR SHAPIRO: Thank you. (Resuming): And there's an area of Goodwood near Negara Crescent where there's some - an industrial estate and some yachts do you remember if you went there in January?……No. Sorry?……I don't remember, no. You don't remember.

MR SHAPIRO: - if you went there in January - sorry?…….I don't remember, no. You don't remember. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

P-631 M. E. VASS

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Where were you living in January 2009, Ms Vass?…….I'm pretty sure I was living at Annie Kenney Women's Shelter in Montrose. Pretty sure?…….Yes, I can't really remember, I'm sorry. And what was your occupation then?…….I wasn't doing anything at all. But you were getting some sort of benefit, were you?…….Yes, I was special benefit - Centrelink. All right. And you say you have never been on board the yacht depicted in that photograph known as the Four Winds?…….No. And you have no memory of being in the wharf area around Constitution Dock and seeing that yacht there?…….No. And was the wharf area, an area that you would go to, in late January9?…….No. Right. If I was to suggest to you that it was highly unlikely that you were down around Constitution Dock on about the 27th or 28th of January 2009, would you accept that?…….Yes. And I think you said a moment ago you have no memory of going to a slip-yard in Goodwood in Negara Crescent called Cleanlift Marine?…….No. You've never been there in your life?…….No. Is that right -…….Yes. - you've never been there in your life?…….Yes. Thank you. Yes, I've no further questions.



HIS HONOUR: You don't happen to have a twin sister, do you?

P-632 M. E. VASS


HIS HONOUR: Mr Shapiro?

MR SHAPIRO: Nothing in re-examination, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well now, what's the plan - do we get the jury in and proceed with this witness' evidence - is that what you'd like to do?


MR SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, bring the jury in.


HIS HONOUR: Affirm again.

P-633 M. E. VASS

HIS HONOUR: Right, ladies and gentlemen, the witness in the box is Meaghan Elizabeth Vass. Yes, administer that affirmation again.


<EXN - MR SHAPIRO: Your full name is Meaghan Elizabeth Vass?……Yes. And your date of birth is the 14th October 1993?……Yes. And you have a photograph there in front of you, do you?……Yes. Can you hold that up so the jury can see what photograph you've got?

HIS HONOUR: It's the first photo from P3 in your large folders, ladies and gentlemen. Yes.

MR SHAPIRO (Resuming): Thank you. Have you ever been aboard that yacht?……No. And at the end of January 2009 or the very beginning of February9 do you remember if you went to Constitution Dock area in Hobart?……I do not remember, no. You don't remember being there?……No. And at that same time do you remember going to an area in Goodwood, Negara Crescent, where there's some yachts on slips and an industrial estate there?……No, I do not remember. So you don't remember if you went there either?……No. Thank you, your Honour, I submit he witness.


<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: You don't have a twin sister?……No.

P-634 M. E. VASS

Right. And you say on your oath that you've never been on board the yacht, Four Winds?……No. The police tried to interview you sometime ago, didn't they?……Yes. And you refused to be interviewed about anything to do with this case, didn't you?……Yes. Yes. You told the police that you wouldn't be interviewed?……Yes. Was there a reason why you refused to be interviewed?……Only because of the fact that this just intimidates me, I've never had to do or go through anything like this before and that was the only reason. Well you felt intimidated by the police, did you?……Yes, I've - I've just never dealt with something this large before and I was shown pictures of the yacht and the same as what went on today and that is - You simply refused to be interviewed, didn't you?……Yes. You said you'd tell them nothing?……Yes. And it would've been easy to say to the police, "I've never been on board that yacht, wouldn't it?……Yes. But you didn't say that, you took the view, "I'm not saying a word to you police officers"?......Yes. Yes. Now I'll ask you again, are you quite sure you've never been on board this boat?……I'm quite sure I've never been on that boat. Right. You had DNA taken from you by forensic or police personnel following an arrest, is that right?……Yes. And that was in relation to a stealing matter?……Yes. Thank you. How old are you?……Sixteen. Sixteen, and where were you living on the 26th January9?……Probably - I'm pretty sure it was Stainforth Court in Lenah Valley. Stainforth Court in Lenah Valley. Where's Stainforth Court in Lenah Valley?……It's as you're coming down the Brooker there's a big block of white - a white complex.

P-635 M. E. VASS

Didn't you say a little while ago in this court that you were living in the Annie Kenny -…….Annie Kenny Montrose, yes. Montrose…….I can't really remember, sorry. Well in a matter of minutes you've changed your story, haven't you?……Well I - You were asked a question a minute ago, "Where did you live on the th January 2009", and you said, "The Annie Kenny Women's Shelter at Montrose"……...Yes. I've been homeless since I was thirteen. Just listen to the question. In this court a matter of minutes ago were you not asked the question, "Where did you live on the 26th January 2009"?.......Yes. And your answer was, "The Annie Kenny Shelter at Montrose"?.......Yes. I asked you the same question a moment ago and you said you were then living at Stainforth Court. They're not the two same places, are they?……No. So I'll ask you again, where did you live on the 26th January9?……Annie Kenny Women's Shelter in Montrose. So why did you tell us a minute ago you lived at Stainforth Court?……Because I'm getting very confused and I have been homeless since I was thirteen, so it's very hard for me. It's not difficult, is it, you were asked the question in this court a few minutes ago?……Yes, I'm sorry. Right. Now in late January 2009, around the 27th January 2009, do you have any memory at all of going to Constitution Dock?……No. Do you know where Constitution Dock is?……It's the one in town where Mures is, isn't it? Yes……..Yes. No, I do not remember.

P-636 M. E. VASS

And would it be fair to say this, you would say that you didn't go there during that period?……Yes. Thank you. And it would be fair to say that you've never been to the industrial premises, that were described a moment ago, called CleanLIFT Marine at Negara Crescent at Goodwood?……Yes. Never been there in your life?……No. And most definitely weren't there in late January early February9?……No. Thank you. I've no further questions.





MR ELLIS SC: Yes, thank you, your Honour. The briefing I've been able to do has revealed that there is an error in the further agreed facts that I presented to you this morning.

HIS HONOUR: Can I see that. Yes?

MR ELLIS SC: In that some of the items, and my learned friend has the numbers, were examined also by Debra McHoul as well as Christopher McKenzie and Carl Grosser and so I'd seek leave to simply add that in in writing and initial it.

HIS HONOUR: So that in paragraph 1 where it says - Where they were examined by Christopher McKenzie and Carl Grosser - You're going to add - you want to add the name "Debra McHoul"?


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson, are you content with that?

MR GUNSON SC: I am, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well I'll pass the exhibit P61 back to Mr Ellis, you can make that change and perhaps both counsel should initial it. Yes, Mr Ellis?

MR ELLIS SC: Thank you, your Honour, I call Deborah McHoul - volume 6, I think - 106A, your Honour.

P-638 D. McHOUL

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.


HIS HONOUR: Take a seat. Yes.

<EXN - MR ELLIS SC: Ms McHoul, you're Debra Margaret McHoul?…….That's correct. And you're a forensic scientist?…….Yes, that's right. What are you qualifications?…….I have a Bachelor of Science Degree with Honours from Luton College of Higher Education and I have a Master of Science Degree in Forensic Science from Kings College University of Lindum, and I've been employed as a forensic scientist since April 1991. Thank you. And you're currently employed as such at Forensic Science Service Tasmania?…….Yes, that's correct. And in that capacity, did you go somewhere in late January early February 2009?…….Yes, I did. Where did you go?.......I attended Negara Crescent to examine a vessel that was moored there. And did you go on board the vessel?…….Yes, I did. Do you recall the name of it?…….The Four Winds. Thank you. And just generally at this stage, what did you do onboard?…….Generally I was there to have a look at the vessel to see if I could see any blood staining and generally just to have a bit of a look and see if there were signs of disturbance or any other biological material that might be of use forensically. And did you collect anything from there?…….Yes, I collected several samples over a period of time from there. In the main, how do you do that - or how did you do that?…….If we see stains, so specific stains or areas of interest that we want to sample, we take a swab. Now a swab basically looks like a really

P-639 D. McHOUL

long cotton bud that you might all of seen, it comes in a case which is sealed, and it's a sterile swab inside the case. So we break the seal, take the swab out, add some sterile water to the tip and then wearing gloves and masks and appropriate protective material we'll rub the swab on the area of interest and we're hoping that we're going to transfer some of the material from that area onto the swab head. The swab then gets replaced back into the case and the case is labelled, usually with the case and item number and where the sample has been collected from, and then would go into usually a brown paper bag which again is sealed and has a continuity label on the outside of it. Thank you. On the 30th January did you do something?……Yes, I attended the Four Winds. The 30th January did you see something at Police Marine Services building?……Sorry, yes I did. What was that?……I attended the Police Services Building to examine a dinghy, a partly inflatable dinghy, with a rigid base, which again I did the same thing I examined for the presence of biological material. Thank you. As well as taking swabs did you use a particular substance or other tests on these?……Yes, if we're looking for - in this case, for example, if we're looking for blood we use - well there are two classes of tests that we can use. We can use a test called a screening test or a confirmatory test. So in this case I used a screening test. A screening test is a test that's very very sensitive for the substance that you're looking for but it's not necessary specific. So in this case I used a chemical called liminol which is a screening test for blood. It's a chemical, it's a liquid, so basically what you have to do is you have to turn all the lights out you then spray this chemical around and you look to see if any areas are glowing and if that's the case then we circle those areas turn the lights back on and then we'd have a closer look at them and maybe sample them if we were interested in them. Thank you. While we're speaking of this generally - could the witness be shown P38, the third set with the green band in the large folder. Does the photograph marked 13 show the dinghy that you examined?……Yes, that's correct. As we go through it and could you come perhaps to photograph 21, and what does that show?……This is a photograph that was taken to show the areas that glowed with the luminol screening test for blood. It's - what happens is the chemical glows quite - the glow isn't very

P-640 D. McHOUL

strong. To take a photograph you need a very long exposure so that's why it looks a bit blurry, because of the long exposure, but yes, you can see quite clearly there are some positive areas there with the chemical. Yes. And when you look at those do you - are there particular strengths of the reaction that you can take note of?……Yes, what we - well we take note of several things when we spray luminol. We take note of the strength of the reaction and how long lived it is, the actual colour of the glow that you see and just the manner of the reaction itself, so whether it's a constant glow, whether it might be sparkling or you get a bright flash which then dies down, because with experience you can distinguish sometimes between false positive reactions with luminol and true positive reactions with luminol and how it reacts, the colour, the longevity is all an indication of that. Thank you. Right, now after you - well during your examinations you took notes, I take it?……That's correct. And did you later prepare a report based on your recollection and your notes?……That's correct. And was that report dated the 12th June 2009?……Yes, that's correct. I'll show you this document please……..Thank you. Is that the report you prepared?……Yes, it is. Are its contents true?……Yes, they are. I tender that, your Honour.


MR ELLIS SC: I ask that copies be made available to the jury. Thank you. And I'll take you through that, Ms McHoul. So that it sets out that you attended Four Winds at Negara Crescent, Goodwood?…….That's correct. And you found in the cockpit a latex type glove?…….That's correct. And it's all correct; a small blue towel/face washer was present. You said that the wheelhouse was relatively undisturbed, except the small silver coloured dish of tobacco, what appeared to be tobacco was there, and you said that red/brown apparent transfer staining was

P-641 D. McHOUL

apparent on the steps. Could you explain that to us please?…….Yes, certainly, when you're talking about red/brown staining or staining that you suspect to be blood, it can broken down into two broader categories; and the two broader categories are transfer type staining and drop type staining. So transfer staining is really exactly what it says. So what that means is that an object that's been wet with blood at the time has come into contact with another surface or another object and has transferred some of the staining to that. Okay. Thank you. Now your report notes that the EPIRB bracket was empty and the saloon was in disarray with cushions upturned on both sides of the room?…….That's correct. So the floor appeared to be unscrewed and some of the carpet squares appeared to be - - and the saloon steps were not in place and were leaning against seating at the right of the saloon. You say that numerous red/brown drops, some less than one millimetre in diameter, were present on a wooden panel to the right of the wheel - the wheel controls housing and this panel formed the port side of the entrance way to the saloon. Could you please be shown P03 - the first set of photographs - that's right, and perhaps we could use - we might - yes, it might be convenient too, your Honour, to use the CD, P4. Thank you. If you can see the numbers and get us, if you can, to number 31. Perhaps it might help to locate also to look at 30 and even 29. Just start at 29 perhaps……..I think that's a good idea. That's a good what?……That's a really good idea. So what do we see there?……We see a view back if you were standing in the saloon, or what I've called the saloon. Mm…….If you're facing back towards the entrance into the wheelhouse of the boat that's the view that you see. Yes……On the right hand side you can see there's a wooden panel with a white circular object in it, which I think is a vent, and this is the panel that I'm talking about when I say I saw several red/brown stains. Right. In fact this is the panel which you speak of in the report where you say: Numerous red/brown drops, some less than one millimetre in diameter, were present on a wooden panel to the right of the wheel - part of the wheel controls housing and this panel formed the port side of the entrance way to the saloon.

P-642 D. McHOUL

…….That's correct. You - and you say that: Some of these drops appeared to exhibit directionality, including some that appeared to have struck the panel at approximately ninety degrees. First, what do you mean by 'directionality'?…….Well when you're talking about - as I said, there are two broad groups of talking about blood stains, this is the second group that we're talking about now. So we're talking about drop type staining. When we're talking about directionality with drops it's all based on the shape of the drop itself. So those that I say appear to have hit the panel at approximately ninety degrees are approximately circular in - in their shape. When I say they exhibit other type of directionality that means that they're elongated. So that means that they're longer than they are wide. And if we drew a line through the longest part of the stain then that would give you the axis along which they've travelled. And sometimes you can tell, again by the shape of the stain, in which direction along the access - axis that they might have travelled. Okay. Your report continues that: Some apparent perimeter stains were also present. What does that mean?…….A perimeter stain is a stain that has dried to some degree and has then somehow been wiped or disturbed in some way, so that the majority of the stain has gone but it leaves a visible outline or a visible edge as to where the original stain was. Right. Now if you could through 30 to 31 and tells us what we might see there, and 32?…….Okay, so 30 is really just trying to get a more ninety degree angle photograph of the panel that you saw in the previous photograph. And again, I think - I think that photograph is trying to show some of the staining. So if I zoom in - Okay. …….- I can see quite clearly here, I don't know if it's very clear on the large screen, that there are several stains that I'm outlining with the mouse. Yes…..You can see the individual stains within there. You can see that some of them, if I go in a little closer, you can see that they are

P-643 D. McHOUL

slightly elongated, so they are slightly longer than they are wide, showing that there is some indication that they've travelled along an axis. If you think about going from the saloon upwards at a diagonal towards the back of the wheelhouse maybe, in whichever direction, but that kind of an axis. And you can see, for example, that one there - sorry, the one in approximately the middle of the screen and to the left of that are again approximately circular so appear to have hit at about ninety degrees so - so straight on to the panel. And as we go through 31, 32, 33, perhaps you could - …..Okay. There is more staining towards the bottom that I've just come down to, so there's more staining on the bottom, towards the bottom of that panel. Again all of the dark stains that you can see there ought to be the same but they weren't all tested, but they appear all to be the same and I have assumed that they are. Okay, so that's a closer up view with more light of the staining that was in the approximate middle of the panel. What number are you on there please?……32. Okay. These are very small drops are they?……Yeah, several of them - well they're all smaller - sorry, let me start that again. If you bleed from a wound and the blood falls to the ground just by the act of - falling under the act of gravity for example you get quite large stains, quite large drops, and they're called passive drops. Now if that falling under the effect of gravity alone has been affected in anyway by a force, what happens is that the drops are broken up so that they become smaller and what you see here, in my opinion, are smaller drops so you've had blood that's been acted upon by some force. And the smaller the drop the greater the force that's been applied to it to produce it. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Could I just ask, that appears to be a scale on that label, are you able to say what the dimensions of the squares are on that label?

WITNESS: That's a police scale, your Honour, so I'm not completely sure.

HIS HONOUR: All right, well I won't ask you to guess, thank you. Mr Ellis.

MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): Thank you. I think we're on 32 at the moment, Ms McHoul?……Yes.

P-644 D. McHOUL

, we're sort of working around that vent a bit, are we, that's the photographer?……Yes, that's correct. Yes, so you can see the vent there. You can see on the bottom of the vent there's an obviously directional stain. Mhm, but caution should apply to that, should it not?……That's correct. Why is that?……When I looked at the vent you can actually twist it, so you can turn the vent around, so I actually disregarded that stain as far as any kind of directionality was concerned because I don't know what position the vent was in and when the blood was deposited on it. So yes, it's a nice directional stain but I can't tell what position the vent was in when it was deposited. Yep, and 34 is a closer up of that stain?……Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Do you recognise what's shown in photos 35 and 36? We're still on the same panel generally?……Yes, that's on the same panel and that's further over, so - sorry, it's quite difficult to explain. That's okay……..So that's the edge closest to where the wheel would be situated, so where the controls would be situated. Yes…….So the other - so if you have - sorry, if you have a panel with the vent in the middle and the staining I've been talking about, if you're looking straight on to the panel, is approximately to the right and below the vent, this staining is actually more towards the left. Thank you. 36, does that - I'll wait 'til you get it - still appear to be a staining of the same substance, but was some of it a different type?……Yes, the stain at the top is the stain that I called an apparent transfer stain, so that's the type of staining I've said might occur if a - if two - if surface wet with glue has contacted another surface or vice versa - and the stain below that that you can see there, that's what I've called a perimeter stain, so you can see that there is quite heavy staining around the outside and then no staining in the middle. And as I said, that's an indication that - that the stain - I'm assuming this is blood, that the bloodstain has partially dried and then something has wiped through it, or contacted through it, which has taken the centre part of the stain away. And they're - both of those stains are towards the bottom of that panel.

Thank you. And 37 and 38?…….So that - I think that's just a far view that the police officers have taken just to demonstrate exactly where the panel is.

P-645 D. McHOUL

Thank you. 38 shows something, does it, of reference to your report but not the actual - well your report says: Two red/brown drops were present on the starboard panel in the saloon adjacent to the entry way - This is on the second page of it: - adjacent to the entrance way and a single red/brown drop was seen on a toilet roll and in the saloon on the port side of the entrance way. …….Yes, that's correct, you can't - unfortunately you can't see on this photograph, but it's a good photograph just to demonstrate exactly where I'm talking about. This is if you're standing in the saloon, again facing back towards the wheelhouse, and this alleyway or corridor, whatever you would call it, here, the panel that I've just been showing you is - is - is on the right there, so the right edge of that. So if you were standing facing the wheelhouse this is the control panel that you would see, and this is what I've called the 'twelve volt panel' and towards the bottom of this panel there was a single red/brown stain. Thank you. Now you took swabs from these - some of these drops?…….That's correct. And did you give them numbers?…….Yes, I did. Perhaps if you can take - if I can take you to the third page of your report and at the bottom you say you collected the following items from the vessel and the items are listed and they're given a number?……That's correct. All right. Now what's the purpose of that number?……That number is to identify them so that - each case at the laboratory is given a case number and then each item within that case is given a unique number as well. So when samples are collected at the crime scene, or at a scene, they are given an individual number to identify them and that's what those numbers are there.

Yes. So when you turn the page is it the case that the numbers, 53, and 55, relate to swabs taken from the stain that we've being looking at just now?……Yes, that's correct.

P-646 D. McHOUL

And within the Forensic Science Service laboratory those numbers are kept aren't they and if there are later analyses done by different scientists they relate to the numbers that you gave it?……Yes, that's correct, they maintain their numbering right throughout all of the analysis so that any subsequent result can be then tied back to what the sample was and where it was taken from. Can I take you back then to the second page your report you noted that there was a bracket possibly for a fire extinguisher which was empty?……That's correct. I'm sorry, I don't mean to - just the sentence above that when we're talking about a drop on the 12 volt panel you say - It seems unlikely that this stain could have been deposited at the same time as those on the panels and the wheelhouse. Why is that?……Well you saw the staining on the panel at the side of - what I called the panel at the side of the wheelhouse, which is where all of those red/brown stains were, and you could see that in some of the axis of their directionality was on the angle as I told you, so from the saloon into the wheelhouse, where they've hit that wall, or that panel, this stain then is on the front face of the 12 volt panel, and although I'm not saying it's impossible I can't see how that could easily have been deposited in that direction and the rest of the staining in that direction at the same time. Your report then refers to: The seat back vertical cushion for the starboard saloon had several brownish stains, two of which were tested and positive with the HS screening test for blood. What's the HS screening test for blood, please?……This is a different screening test, so we have two major screening tests that we use for blood at the laboratory. One of them is luminol and that's for looking for very trace amounts of blood, the HS, HS stands for Hemastix, so the Hemastix is again a screening test for blood, so again it's sensitive but not necessarily specific, and what that is, it looks like - well what it is in fact is a plastic strip with some chemicals impregnated on the end of it and if you've ever been to

P-647 D. McHOUL

your doctor and you've given a urine sample and he's dipped something into it and then had a look it's very similar to that. It's exactly the same test that a doctor would use to test for blood in urine, for example, and we use it by taking the test strip out and just rubbing it on the stain slightly to get a little bit of transfer and adding a drop of water and then looking for a colour change and if we see a colour change to a green colour, from yellow to green, then that gives us an indication that our screening test is positive. Right. Now you referred to the seat back vertical cushion, could you look at photograph 78, please, of that set. Is that the cushion to which you've referred?……Yes, that's right, those big black circles that I've drawn on there, they actually correspond to luminol positive areas, but then what happens is that with luminol when you get a positive result you turn the lights on and you have a really close look at the areas that are positive and within some of those areas I saw some very small brownish stains that were positive with that screening test. So to enable a better analysis or certainly a closer look we packaged that up and actually sent it off to the lab for analysis. Okay. Is it the case that you collected a sample or a swab there and gave it the number 78 - no, I don't think it is the case - perhaps ?…….Yes, it wasn't a swab though, it was the actual whole seat cushion that we collected and took away. Okay. Yes, I see, so that's a seat cushion, and commonly when it goes to the laboratory, samples or swabs are taken from such an item - …….Yes. - and they'll be subdivided as to numbers, 65(1), (2), (3) and so on?…….That's correct, if we - so this seat cushion, for example, is item 65. The scientist then who examined it, if they found areas of interest, they would either swab them, or in this instance, maybe cut them out because it's a - a cloth cover, and they then go on for subsequent testing. They're given what are called 'sample numbers'. So you'd have the case number and then a dividing slash, the item number which is 65, and then in brackets following it you'll have the sample, which is (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or whatever. So perhaps, because there's no magic, you're not writing on the report, it might help the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to - to note that at the page we're looking at, numbers 53, 54 and 55 refer to the - generally, to the drops referred to in the second - in the first and second paragraphs?…….That's correct. And those preceding it, I think. And item 65 refers to the - the vertical cushion?…….Yes, that's correct.

P-648 D. McHOUL

Thank you. Now above that cushion you referred to the bulkhead, I don't know whether we all know what we're talking about, what's - what's the bulkhead?…….Well it was just, as you can see, the area of panelling and cupboards and - I just called it 'bulkhead' - Yeah.…….Yeah. And that had similar brown stains through - which were tested?…….That's correct. And you say very smallish - Very small brownish stains positive of HS screening test for blood were present on the paintwork - …….That's correct. - behind the seat cushion in the corner adjacent. …….Yes, that's right, so if you take the seat cover away there was some paintwork behind it and that's where there was some additional staining. Now your report then goes on to relate the luminal positive areas as being, "On both outside walkways as possible drops and general stains", what do those terms mean?……Well luminol, as I said, is very sensitive so what - after looking for luminol is to get some pattern information. Now I didn't really get any pattern information in this case so all that means really is that some of the stains I saw looked like a drop so looked, you know, as you would expect a drop to look and some of them were just large amorphous positive areas with no determining pattern information within them so that's what that meant. Thank you. And there are detail where there was some luminol positive areas around, "And a strong luminol positive area associated with a visible stain was present towards the stern end of the starboard seat area adjacent to the winch"?......Yes, that's correct. Yes. So that's the exterior then you recorded - deals with luminol of the interior and you found luminol positive, "Elongated possible drops were present on the inside of the cockpit entry behind where the stairs would have stood"…….Yes, that correct.

P-649 D. McHOUL

Okay. Now you were told that - well, I'm sorry, when you saw it the stairs were not in situ, where you'd expect stairs to be?……No, the stairs were to the left leaning against what appeared to be a seat in the wheelhouse. Yeah. Does photograph 21 show those stairs?……Yes. And if you imagine the stairs to be in situ then there was some luminol positive areas behind them?……Yes, that's correct, so it was fairly obvious where the stairs should sit. There were hooks and eyes where they would be fastened as you walked down into the wheelhouse, so there was staining, as I've already discussed, apparent transfer staining on the steps and behind where the steps would have been, had they been in situ, there were some luminol positive areas. Okay. You say: The shelf to the right of the wheel, possibly a chart shelf, found a generally positive reaction - This is to luminol still of course?……That's correct, yes. - on a piece of wood with writing on it in the wheelhouse. In the saloon the table gave a strong reaction. And so on. Maybe this needs a little explanation: The panel below the barometer and the clock - Can you recall where they were?……Yes, if you're - if you're in the saloon and you're looking forward you have the seating that we've been discussing, I think - I think it's the panel facing me if you're standing and looking forward, I think. Okay. Does 42 show that?……Yes, that's correct. And you say: - gave a generalised positive reaction, that is to luminol, but appeared to have been replaced and was of a different material to the surrounding panels. What does that comment mean?……What that means is that - in fact you can even see it on the photograph I think, that there is a panel below that looks different.

P-650 D. McHOUL

Mhm…….When we spray luminol what we'd expect, for example, is that if a wall was all made of the same substance and was for some reason reacting with luminol we'd see the whole wall react, - Yep……..- if that makes sense. In this instance the whole wall didn't react, just that panel below the - where the barometer and the clock is, but as I said, it looked different and it seemed to have been replaced, so my - my belief is that that was - that that particular piece of panel is giving a false positive to the luminol chemical. A little further down you say: The galley itself was generally positive, possibly due to the many metal surfaces. How does that happen?……One of the things that luminol will react with as a potential false positive is some metal objects, but also the chemical itself does glow slightly and if you then put that onto a shiny metal surface that will tend to enhance that glow, so again it's my belief - with experience you can often tell when this is the case, and it's my belief that - that the luminal was just reacting with the metal surfaces. All right. Thank you. There then follows the numbers and the descriptions of where things were taken, or what - what things were taken?…….Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Okay. And then we come to the examination that you made of the dinghy; now perhaps if you could be given the hardcopy photos as before, which were P38 - Constable Williamson's - and I believe we have a CD for that - P39, your Honour, if that could be loaded? Maybe start with photograph 13, please, Ms McHoul? You'll see if that's handy - …….Pardon? You'll see if that's handy for you to explain various aspects? So we've got an inflatable Quicksilver brand dinghy, an orange rope attached to the bow, a small brownish stain on the top of the port side towards the stern was positive to the HS screening?…….That's correct. Whereas, a brownish (indistinct word) stains are also positive - was that at the same area on the port side?…….On the top of the port side towards the stern - is that - sorry, is that where you are?

P-651 D. McHOUL

Yes, is it - is that where it refers to?…….Sorry, I think I - I think I've missed something, sorry. Sorry, small brown stains on the port side towards the stern - I can't point - point you to it in the photograph. I can have a look at my notes whether I have a clearer indication of where it is. Okay. Perhaps if you could go through the remaining photographs and see - just acquaint yourself with them?…….Okay, so this are just generalised overview shots of the - of the dinghy after it's been fingerprinted. So this is the - the right side towards the front. Mm hm. …….Any - unfortunately because I - what happened is, I gave - I gave an examination by eye and made some notes and then the dinghy was fingerprinted, so the specific stains that I might have mentioned as being brownish you probably can't see beneath the fingerprint powder, unfortunately. The stains that I've described as drop and run type stains were on the very front on the inner aspect of the inflatable area at the front. But again, you can't really see them beneath the fingerprint powder. This is towards the back, obviously, showing the left hand side or the port side. This is subsequent to the luminal examination, so the area outlined in black there is an area that was positive with the luminal screening test for blood. Yeah.…….That's a closer view of that. All right. And does that seem to show the staining?…….Yes, it shows that there was something there that reacted, certainly. That's around the same - I think that's the same stain, and closer again. And that's just a shot of the overall dinghy and then that's the shot showing the luminol positive areas. Right, thank you. Now as to the luminol positive areas what can you say about those, the strength of the reaction or whatever?……Okay. The strength of the reaction in the front on the inside was very long lived and strong as was the area of staining towards the back on the port side. Unfortunately you can't really see the staining on the trim- well you can a little I think on the trim at the front, that also was strong and long lived. The area in the middle and towards the back was slightly less, gave a slightly less strong glowing reaction but was again long lived. This run down here that you can see is just the chemical itself running down towards the back. Because the glow is very pale to some extent, even though I'm calling it strong

P-652 D. McHOUL

and weak, overall even when it's strong it's not particularly bright so the exposure we spray multiple times to enable it to come out in a photograph so that's why there has been some overspray of the chemical which has then run down towards the back and pooled at the back. Just staying with that and then looking at your report you might be able to help us. Item number 46, swab of the luminol positive area right side of the floor, could you show us where that was taken?……Yes, so that's the strong area up at the front on the right hand side that you can see in the photograph. Yes. And, sorry, go back 43, described as - Luminol positive rope and trim bow - under right side of bow. …….Yes, that's the rope and trim that you can see glowing in photograph here. The rope and trim is continuous from about - well it wasn't quite halfway down the right hand side, it was more towards the front than there, - Yep…….- but there was a rope and trim that went all the way around the front to the left hand side as well and the left hand side was almost completely negative with the luminol reaction and the right hand side was positive, as you see it there. Okay. And is 167 the number for the rope and trim front left side of dinghy?……Yes. Yes, that's correct. Right. While we're on that page, 169 and 170 are described as 'swab control for FST item 45 and 46'?.......That's correct. What does that mean, please?……What that means is that when we take - when we take a sample, sometimes but not always, we take a control sample or what we call a control sample, and what that means is that we're taking a sample in this case of a luminol positive reaction and because it's a fairly confined space if we get a positive reaction we want - we want to have some indication maybe that the reaction is actually coming from the luminol positive area rather than just we could've swabbed anywhere in that particular boat and got a reaction. So that's why I've taken control samples and what that means is that I've taken a swab in this instance from the luminol positive area at the right and then what I've done is I've taken an area that's not necessarily exactly adjacent to it but certainly in the same kind of area, as in being at the front on the floor of the boat. That wasn't positive with luminol and I've taken that as a control so that the two results can be compared.

P-653 D. McHOUL

Thank you……..However the control samples weren't taken on the same night as the luminol samples were taken. And a little time later some microscopic examination was attempted on the dinghy, is that right?……Yes, that's correct, so because I got such strong positive reactions in the - in the dinghy I wanted to have a look at it with good light and with magnification so I asked that the boat - that the dinghy be brought to the laboratory, which happened, and I did that exam with an operating microscope and some good light but I didn't find any obvious red/brown staining in the boat. In the - sorry?……I didn't find any obvious red/brown staining that would correspond with my luminol positive reactions. Thank you. Just bear with me for a minute, please, Ms McHoul. Well, I'll just ask you about - about this; a forensic biology report was compiled -…….That's correct. - and - well in fact two were, and as I understand it, that's done under - by your - by examination of scientists or under their supervision, and this one was the 1s t of July, was done partly by Mr McKenzie and partly by you, is that right?…….Yes, that's correct, it's actually been written and signed by Mr McKenzie, but some of the items within that report were done by or under the direction of me. Okay. And were the ones that you did numbered 113 onwards?…….Yes - can I have a look at my notes?

HIS HONOUR: Is there any objection to that?

MR GUNSON SC: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, have a look at your note.

WITNESS: Yes, that certainly seems to be the case.

MR ELLIS SC: (Resuming): And were they mainly samples and items taken from - from a motor vehicle, registered DOO402?…….Without sitting here and going through them all - No.…….- I don't think I can tell you that.

Well perhaps I can show you and tell you - do the jury have copies of the agreed facts now, your Honour?

P-654 D. McHOUL


WITNESS: Thank you.

MR ELLIS SC: Oh, can Ms McHoul have a copy too please?…….Right, thank you. You've got one -

HIS HONOUR: No, can I - actually can I have that spare one please?

MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): And, ladies and gentlemen, the first page of the agreed facts we've inserted in your presence they were examined by Christopher McKenzie, Debra McHoul and Carl Grosser. So this relates, does it, to your examination of - well as it's described. If we look at 113 there's the set out of this report……..Sorry, Mr Ellis, I didn't hear you. , Forensic Biology Report of the 1s t July 2009.

HIS HONOUR: So it's item 113 on page 1026 of the document.

MR ELLIS SC (Resuming): Are you there?……Yes. The set out of this report, perhaps you can take us through it. Number refers to the exhibit number that we've previously discussed?……That's correct. And then there's a description of the exhibit?……That's correct. And source, is that right?……That's correct. Where do these - where does the source usually come from to go into the report?……Well if it's an item that's been collected by one of us at a scene then it's whatever we've written on the continuity label. Yes……..If it's an item that's come into us from the police then again it's whatever they've written on the continuity label, we just assume that that's correct.

P-655 D. McHOUL

Yep. Okay, then to the next column, the number is 113 1234, and does that indicate that swabs have been taken?……Yes, swabs and samples, yes, that's correct. Taken from that jacket, and they - and then the description is that they were shown to be luminol positive?……That's correct. Okay. That's a blue jacket from a registered number DO 0402 and many of the subsequent ones, are they not, are from that same source or that same motor vehicle?……Yes, that's correct. Okay. And is it the case that the DNA profiling that we see there is the work of Mr Grosser, the DNA profiler?……Yes, that's correct. And that just matches up through there?……Yes, that's right. Okay. Well we'll come to explain that in more detail this afternoon probably. Just taking you, if you could, to 159 - these are items from the dinghy, are they not?…….Yes, that's correct. And its motor?…….Yes, that's correct. Then we go on at 165 to a vacuum cleaner and the dinghy?…….That's correct. And I think that's - that's all we need to go to, thank you. That's the evidence in chief, your Honour.


HIS HONOUR: Mr Gunson?

P-656 D. McHOUL

<XXN - MR GUNSON SC: Go back to some basics for a moment; DNA, such as you were looking for on board this boat and on board the dinghy, can be extracted from a number of bodily substances - correct?…….Yes, that's correct. The most common used by forensic scientists, if they have it available, is blood?…….Yes. And that's one of the most easier samples to take, or to extract DNA from?…….Well there are several other bodily fluids that would give good results as well. Saliva another good example?…….Yes, that's right. Urine, to a lesser extent?…….Yes, not so good, but yes. But blood and saliva are perhaps the basic ones with skin samples as well?…….Yes, and semen in there as well. And semen, of course, well we're not talking about that - leave that to one side. So when you look at a dinghy such as that being used by Mr Chappell, it doesn't come as a surprise to you that DNA of Mr Chappell was found on the dinghy?…….Not necessarily, no. No. I mean you would expect that if somebody was handling a dinghy to leave some of their DNA on it?…….It's certainly possible, yes. Yes. Yes. More likely than not isn't it? I mean for instance if you were pulling hard on a rope, such as the rope around the side of the boat, to pull into the water or out of the water, the likelihood is that you would leave some of your DNA on that rope?……Yes, certainly a rope's a good example because it's a rough surface so, yes. It's a good surface, it's a rough surface, it takes a little bit of minute skin off and hence you can get DNA from it?……Yes. I mean contact samples like you're describing tend not to be - I mean this - to be fair this isn't really my area, this is Dr Grosser's, but - But it's within your range of knowledge isn't it?……Yes, that's correct. All right, thank you for that……The - the type of contact samples that you've describing often don't give good DNA results because

P-657 D. McHOUL

skin cells are not a very rich source of DNA if that's where in fact the DNA profile is coming from but samples - sorry, something such as a rope like you're talking about that's a rough sample. If it had a lot of contact, if someone was pulling hard, as you say, then, ye