Andrew L. Urban
An article compiled by AI states that “Steven Fennell is suing the Queensland government and police for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and abuse of process. Fennell was wrongfully convicted of murdering his grandmother, Mrs Watson, and spent time in prison. In September 2019, the High Court of Australia quashed his convictions.” But Mrs Watson was not his grandmother.
“Of all the media stories, trial records, Appeal and High Court transcripts available none mention, suggest or state that Mrs Watson was Steven’s grandmother; what has happened?” wonders our reader and Steven’s friend David Wright.
He adds, “Steven was convicted at trial to spite the overwhelming evidence that the police case was wrong. Steven failed at the Appeals court because the judges cut and pasted an argument made by the DPP that was factually wrong. What is galling is that none of the three Appeals judges picked up the error because they did NOT act independently. This error was mentioned in the High Court.”
It seems Wright is right: “The story in essence is about the flaws in AI reasoning and logic.”
Steven Fennell with his wife Helen and son Adam
For Fennell, “this AI error is simply a progression of incorrect assertions, this time created by AI.
“AI will be of massive assistance in the collection and sorting of quantum material, but if AI is going to self generate opinions which appear to the reader to be facts then the use of AI will be a problem. How many people will read this comment and believe it? How many will make an argument or debate be it on legal or a moral basis based on this AI error?
“While the AI error is an issue, I wonder how many journalist when made a aware of this error will see the importance of better regulation in the area of AI. In my official HCA case, there is a single transcription error that I have found. A transcription error that changes the entire circumstances, relevance and the importance of one assertion. Was that transcription (from the video) AI generated?”
Fennell explains that error: “The comment by Keane J on video is “Except that its significance was that it was a false statement on Mr Fennell. It made him look like a guilty man. He was making a story up as to what he had done with the money”. The written transcript changes the word ON to BY ” The video …….”it was a false statement on Mr Fennell.” when on was changed to by it completely changed the context of the statement; anyone hoping to use that as a legal argument would be thwarted by the error.
“My very real concern here is complacency. When investigators and /or journalists take note of the error and come to one of the following conclusions:-1. The information does not affect a current police investigation so it’s no big deal or 2. Errors are made all the time this one appears to be insignificant or 3. The matter is now closed it’s not worth correcting or 4. a reckless and cavalier attitude is now the norm.
“My point is not that AI transcribed incorrect material, rather that the error was not present in available transcripts and for whatever reason AI has developed it’s own version of the facts. This could just have easily been a case where a medical diagnosis was made NOT based on the available facts which could lead to a serious result for the patient.
“What AI has stated about my matter is wrong; but what is more important is how AI came to make that error.”
>> Having spent more than six years in prison for murder before being released by the High Court, Fennell has launched a $5.5 million damages claim. Fennell claims wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
ADDENDUM
After digging for hours online rummaging through some 80 articles, Steven Fennell found the only mention of “grandmother” – in a headline.
[in response to: David Wright says: January 27, 2025 at 12:39 am ]
Thanks, David:
In the Neill-Fraser case, supporters of Sue Neill-Fraser have benefitted from her trial transcript being available to the general public. It is a great resource to have … all 1500+ pages of it. The digital copy of the SNF trial that we have access to, can be searched, sections can be copied and pasted, etc.
Your “not true but often repeated” … rings a bell to anyone familiar with the Neill-Fraser trial. For example, her supporters would recall grimly how DPP Ellis used the expression “red-herring” time and again against Neill-Fraser. So too do SNF’s supporters shake their head at the memory of Justice Blow, who in summing up to the jury, referred eight times to a wrench: “a wrench”, “a terribly heavy wrench”, “a wrench”, “a wrench”, “a wrench”, “a wrench”, “a wrench”, and finally, “this wrench.”
This was following DPP Ellis’s repeated use of ‘wrench‘ (in Closing) as a weapon used in the murder of Bob Chappell – (Sue’s partner). Trouble is, David, … there was no wrench! There was no murder weapon in evidence, … but one was hypothesised: …’maybe there was a wrench or some such thing’…There was no confession, no direct evidence … no body … no victim’s body … no witness … no motive … no weapon … no wrench…
Just returning to your thoughts on the existence of a ‘TAB’ account. I get a bit confused by the references to bank accounts, EFTPOS account, ‘the business account’, Unitab, TAB account and SF’s Smart Access bank account.
[from HCA transcript; see also – at 2h:44m of HCA Audio: “1003 … is the personal …the Smart Access bank account is the personal bank account of Steven Fennell, similarly plotting withdrawal…“]
Without a trial transcript at my disposal, I obviously lack knowledge of much pertaining to Steven Fennell’s case. Thanks for explaining things to me. The ‘EFTPOS account’ [aka his ‘TAB account’? aka a ‘Unitab account’?] shows winnings payments to SF which exceeded outlays:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2019/37.html
So SF’s larger wins were paid by the TAB into his account. It seems to me from this that such wins are recorded by the TAB and it seems to me likely/possible that the records of such wins would carry with them relevant details … e.g. the amount of the bet, the event, time & date etc.
… hence the knowledge of ‘staked amounts’.
But a close-reading of the above para 45 suggests that what was lacking in that reference to “staked amounts” was an acknowledgement that records of any $s lost in unsuccessful bets were not part of that calculation of SF’s net position.
Once again, David, thanks for getting back to me on what I’d put in my comment. I’ve read what you’ve written and have tried to respond appropriately. Also, I’ve gone to the audio sections that you have pointed out and listened to them, while reading the relevant transcript parts. Incidentally, I think you might have got the following point of time (in the audio) incorrectly …
In any case, you can see that I had seen that part where SF was $13,000 ‘in front’ (in his EFTPOS account. Also you have referred to parts of one of the documents by paragraph number … in the copy of the same doc that I’ve accessed I don’t have the numbered paras … it doesn’t matter, … I found the sections by listening to the part of the audio that you had given the time for, had a listen, chose a word from the audio to do a ‘word search’ on (e.g. ‘shortfall’ would be a likely candidate … as one wouldn’t expect to see it used in every second word. ‘Plotting’ was another such word.) Best wishes – Garry.
Garry,
Before I start I am not sure if you read my additional post made that same / next day which basically outline a lot of what I am now writing.
Regardless I will clarify some of the misdirection at trial which unfortunately spilled over into the HCA. I would argue it was due to ignorance or it was deliberant misdirection by MR BYRNE.
I refer to your comment “Just returning to your thoughts on the existence of a ‘TAB’ account. I get a bit confused by the references to bank accounts, EFTPOS account, ‘the business account’, Unitab, TAB account and SF’s Smart Access bank account.”
Let me state:-
1. Steven Fennell had no TAB account or any other online betting account. That was the simple fact. The statement of TAB account is mentioned at trial for no other reason than to sow doubt and confusion. Mr Cash at trial asked Mrs Fennell if she knew her husband had a TAB account to which she say no she didn’t know. Mrs Fennell reply led the jury to believe that he had a TAB account –what purpose this lie served is not known by Steven, but it’s not had to speculate why Mr Cash suggested Steven Fennell had a TAB account.
2. The EFTPOS account is the prosecution saying that when Steven won he was paid by EFTPOS at the Pub into his personal account which was called a “Smart Access bank account” any singular reference to his personal account was referencing his Smart Access bank account”. Any reference to his business related to his chequing account.
3. Unitab is the official name for the TAB. Any accounting or data collection reference made by the forensic account was made with data obtained from Unitab. It should be noted that the Pub had to keep a TAB transaction account record which could also have been accessed for general information.
4. At trial, the prosecution used a snippet of 2 days gambling, where Steven lost over $1,000. However, this recording was extremely disingenuous because one week earlier he won over $6,000 on Melbourne cup day.
Let me be clear the forensic accountant will claim (correctly) that it would be impossible for Unitab to determine Steven’s bets from others on the busiest day of the year. HOWEVER Garry, this is where the police, and the Forensic account choose not to look for evidence of Steven’s win. It’s not rocket science all that had to occur was for the police to interview staff working at the TAB at the Pub and ask how often Steven collected. There is no record of any payment into his bank account for a very simple reason …..he was paid cash not $6,000 all at once but over the period of the day. He was paid cash because the TAB turnover was much larger than normal being Melbourne cup. Note the ONLY reason Steven was paid via EFTPOS for larger wins previously was because the Pub normally didn’t have the cash to pay him.
5. Here is a misdirection or MR BYRNE conflating at least 2 different events I will not edit so that you do not miss the import section
“MR BYRNE: I was just about to turn to that. Your Honour drew from the evidence at page 716, which in turn refers to Ms McKinnon having access to TAB documentation, still with volume 5 – if I could ask your Honours to go to page 995. This is the list of documents that Ms McKinnon had regard to. You will see at entries 371, 373 and 375 on that page that there are Unitab transaction inquiries, Unitab the corporate entity for the TAB at the time in Queensland, and you will see that there are transaction reports.” This comment is correct.
MR BYRNE further states “Now, they report what was paid into a bank account and they have the capability, according to Ms McKinnon, of reporting what the staked amount was for that payout. This comment is correct.
MR BYRNE further states “Otherwise they will only record – and I do not know if there is an instance in this case, but the evidence is to the effect they will record a staked amount if it is taken out of the TAB account, rather than cash over the counter.” Utter Bullshit. A staked amount is recorded regardless extra comments are not only wrong but twice misleading. Remember Steven has no TAB account that’s just thrown in to try and support all the statements that mention (incorrectly) that Steven has a TAB account. Secondly, any transaction (deposit or withdrawal) from a TAB account is of course recorded!!
6. 45. The difficulty with this aspect of the Crown case was that there was no evidence from which conclusions could be drawn about Mr Fennell’s net position from gambling prior to the time when he commenced Mrs Watson’s banking or during that period. Garry it makes you wonder if Mr Cash the trial prosecutor or Mr Byrne are really this inept because that statement contradicts the Forensic accountants report which recorded wins and losses from the information provided by Unitab. What has occurred here Garry is that the Forensic accountants report waffled it was not clear or concise. It did however upon examination have the information recorded to show that during the period of investigation Steven was well ahead.
7. Large wins of $500 to $1,000 or more would be paid by the TAB into Mr Fennell’s EFTPOS card but smaller wins would be paid in cash. The reason for this was simply so the Pub could retain cash for normal business transactions.
8. “As to the larger amounts paid electronically, the forensic accounting evidence from Ms McKinnon was that between July 2010 and November 2012 there was $25,880 transferred electronically from the TAB into Mr Fennell’s account based upon staked amounts of $12,608. “While that is correct what was never spoken of (even though it was in the Forensic accountants records) was his cash position and his re-bet position. Re-bet is not a TAB industry term, or an accounting term. The term re-bet was coined, created and used by the Forensic accountant. Re-bet really should have just gone in the cash ledger but no the Forensic accountant had to make this analysis as cocked-up as possible, but it did successfully distract the defence from a proper analysis of the Forensic accountant’s report.
9. But a close-reading of the above para 45 suggests that what was lacking in that reference to “staked amounts” was an acknowledgement that records of any $s lost in unsuccessful bets were not part of that calculation of SF’s net position. Garry, the Forensic accountant had in fact done a day by day win & loss analysis for the entire period it’s the prosecution that chose to focus on a few days in September 2012. A separate addendum which was as boring as bat shit had the data available .
It’s unbelievable that so much data was available and collected yet missed by everybody except Steven and those of us that he shared the documents with.
Garry, this police investigation and the prosecution failures that I have mentioned are but the tip of the iceberg.
Thanks David: Yes, I did read all of your reply to me. I don’t know how TABs operate or how they operated at the time of Mrs Watson’s murder. (It’s a long time since I’ve been in a TAB).
I don’t know how a TAB can pay winnings into an EFTPOS card: (“Large wins of $500 to $1,000 or more would be paid by the TAB into Mr Fennell’s EFTPOS card “)
If you don’t have an account with a TAB, is there something like a machine that scans a betting ticket and which tells you if it’s won anything and then maybe asks you if you want to collect your winnings in cash or choose to stick your EFTPOS card into a reader (like at the supermarket) and have your winnings credited to your card’s account in that manner?
I had a google look at “TAB” (‘how to bet’ and stuff like that)…
[https://www.punters.com.au/tab/betting-at-the-tab/]
… but what I saw there didn’t really help me.
Anyway, thanks for your answers to my comments. I’m back at work tomorrow (after the Christmas / annual leave break). I don’t think I’ll have as much time available as I’ve already had in preparing my lengthy comments to do with these Steven Fennell matters, though I will look forward to reading any WCR reporting of his civil claim – best wishes, Garry.
AUSTRALIA DAY: JUSTICE 4 SUE NEILL-FRASER, BOB CHAPPELL + STEVEN FENNELL.
Thanks for replying (January 23, 2025 at 1:24 pm ) to my comment, David and please forgive the extreme length of the following comment (which I’ve posted here, rather than below in reply to your own response to me, as that would make the line width narrower. Also, I’ve tried to triple check all my (hidden) formatting and I hope it will transmit in a readable form…. gulp!
Q1. I haven’t got access to a transcript of the trial and I wasn’t present at it. Have you got a copy and/or, were you present at the trial?
You had asked me:
“…what do you make of a statement made by the prosecution at trial, repeated at Appeal and dogmatically repeated in the HCA that was simply not true. […]
Specifically the comment that Mrs Fennell did not know that her husband had a TAB account.
Q2. I guess what I’m also asking is: how do you know that it’s not true that Steve Fennell had a TAB account?
In any case, I’m wondering if the term ‘TAB account’ was – perhaps incorrectly … perhaps correctly – used to equate with the TAB paying Fennell’s large winnings into his EFTPOS card. (Or is the EFTPOS card scenario also rejected?)
Q3. Whether or not Steven Fennell had a TAB account or actually had a facility for the TAB to pay his winnings into his EFTPOS account, was Mrs Fennell aware of the extent of Steven Fennell’s gambling habit? (the sub-text for this question is that the prosecution case seems to have been that Steven Fennell had been withdrawing money from Lisalotte Watson’s bank account and was using some of it for gambling. Steven Fennell was said to have been worried that his wife would find out about his gambling … and I’m wondering if at trial it was claimed that he killed Lisalotte Watson to keep her (and thence, his wife) from discovering two larger-than-the-usual withdrawals which he had made, supposedly on Lisalotte Watson’s behalf.
EXN
In answer to your asking whether I’m legally trained, the short answer is ‘no’. However, over the last 20 years or so I’ve been interested in a few legal matters and have devoted some time and close attention to them – for example the matters surrounding the since-failed Gunns Ltd Tamar Valley Pulp Mill proposal and the Miscarriage of Justice occasioned – in my view -during the trial of Susan Neill-Fraser on a charge of murdering her partner, Bob Chappell … on this very day, January 26, 2009.
I belong to the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group which continues to find ways to support Sue, who is now on 10 years parole, after 13 years in prison. She is required to meet various parole conditions, including curfews, 24/7 wearing of ankle bracelet, travel restrictions, public speaking et al.
I saw that Steven Fennell had asked Andrew Urban for a means of communicating with Sky Parra. If he goes to https://www.facebook.com/FreeSNF/ or emails somuchdoubt@gmail.com and enquires there, I’m sure someone will give him a way of contacting Sky.
For those who like to do their own searching about legal cases, I recommend AustLII [https://www.austlii.edu.au/]
For others, there is a great resource available to members of libraries. It is called Newsbank … and in my case (Tasmania) I open up the Libraries Tasmania website, choose ‘eLibrary’, ‘Magazines and newspapers’ then ‘Newsbank’. I’m presuming that municipal/govt/local libraries on the mainland offer this facility to their members. It’s free, but some of those ‘subscription only’ articles (‘paywall’) articles aren’t included in search results. Still, it’s worthwhile.
XXN 1
David Wright wrote:
January 23, 2025 at 1:24 pm
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2025/01/19/ai-kills-steve-fennells-grandmother/#comment-142072
XXN 2
R v Fennell [2017] QCA 154 (21 July 2017): Appeal in QLD Supreme Court dismissed
GOTTERSON JA: [22] Motive: The Crown alleged that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased from the following circumstances. The appellant had no substantial savings. In early November 2012, he lost a part-time job delivering catalogues for the Russell Island IGA. He was a regular TAB punter. His wife did not know that he had a TAB account or that he would regularly go to the Pub Paradise TAB agency to bet.[16] An agency employee, Robert Papps, testified that the appellant had said that he was worried about his wife finding out.[17]
[75] …An employee who had begun working at the TAB agency six months prior to the deceased’s death, said that he would visit two or three times a week. His wagers were usually of the order of $50, $100 or $200.[111] He had the occasional win and if it was about $500 or more, he would have it credited to his EFTPOS card.[112
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2017/154.html
XXN 3
Fennell v The Queen [2019] HCATrans 186 (11 September 2019): 3 Orders:
1 Appeal allowed 2 Conviction quashed & 3 Fennell acquitted
TRANSCRIPT: KEIFEL, CJ and Counsel for Steven Fennell:
MR Byrne QC with C W Wallis for the respondent (instructed by DPP (Qld))
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/other/HCATrans/2019/186.html
XXN 4
Fennell v The Queen [2019] HCA 37 (6 November 2019): Publication of Reasons
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2019/37.html
XXN 5
[6Nov2019]: A HCA statement accompanying & summarising its ‘same day’ Publication of Reasons doc.]
https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2019/hca-37-2019-11-06.pdf
CLOSING
In its reasons explaining its decisions to allow the appeal, to quash the conviction and to acquit Steven Fennell, the HCA raised Fennell’s limited opportunity to commit the murder, a lack of motive, lack of incriminating evidence at his home or on his person. The HCA took strong exception to Mr Matheson’s identification of a hammer as being his own hammer which he had lent to Fennell quite some time before the murder. The Court found Matheson’s identification of the hammer to be “glaringly improbable.”
I myself must make the comment that there are personal items that a chap comes to know closely. Indeed, I myself have a hammer which I could identify by various of its attributes … its look, its size and design, the weight of its head, the size of its grip and a tiny mark/flaw on it which was created once when I applied so much force that a tiny split in the shaft was occasioned. I’ve used that hammer to drive 6 inch nails … back in the day. Of course, I’ve used it for lesser sized nails, though these days I see far more hammers on my pianos than those few which are ‘resting’ in my tool box.
So I’m expressing an amount of opposition to the High Court judges ‘glaringly improbable’ view. And in writing that, I must add that I know precious little about the case. I know relatively nothing about the proposed civil suit. I’m not seeking to be a smart-alec when I observe that going to court is like gambling — only do it if you can afford to lose.
And in saying that I hope the justice will prevail and I’ll get back to my study of the Sue Neill-Fraser case which is around the disappearance and presumed murder from and on their yacht, the Four Winds on this very day – Australia Day 2009- sixteen years ago. May Justice Prevail!
Garry
Thank you for the detailed reply. I will edit to save space but attempt to keep the core parts of your questions intact.
I will answer as best that I can – by that, I mean as much as I am able to given that Steven does at some point want to put something either in print or a podcast or both.
I can tell you that I have /had access to a lot of material not just what was used at trial. I will where I can give you a reference if I haven’t it is for the reasons I have mentioned.
In order to answer a question clearly there can be a fair bit of back-story but it’s all interlinked.
Q1. I haven’t got access to a transcript of the trial and I wasn’t present at it. Have you got a copy and/or, were you present at the trial?
Answer Q1 I was at the trial. I have had access to much of the material Steven had been supplied.
Q2. I guess what I’m also asking is: how do you know that it’s not true that Steve Fennell had a TAB account?
Answer Q2. The Forensic accountant gave evidence about Steven’s gambling and no mention of A TAB account mentioned. In addition, the police-running log mentions investigations into not only the TAB but also all avenues of online betting.
Mr Cash was a cleaver prosecutor; and nothing he said, nothing he did was an accident. The best deception at trial were things that were said repeatedly which were not true but often repeated.
Garry, I believe for the sole purpose of plausible denial I posit the term ‘TAB account’ was –incorrectly (but on purpose) used to equate with the TAB paying Fennell’s large winnings into his EFTPOS card.
No; the EFTPOS situation is correct in fact Garry I suggest you go to the HCA transcript par1400-1405 and video 1:27:00 here you will see that rather than Steven having a gambling shortfall as claimed / suggested by Mr Cash the trial prosecutor Steven is ahead some $13,000.00 with regards to EFTPOS transactions. There is more to this actual gambling position, which I am sure Steven will reveal at some point.
If I could direct you to par 2540 video 2:45:45 this is also not true, because the forensic accountant produced a number of documents that had tracked Steven’s cash winnings which I have said had Steven $10,000 ahead in cash.
If I could further direct you to par 2745 video 2:58:00 This evidence was given by the Bar manager who had dealing with Steven on an almost daily basis so why use the statement of a casual TAB staff and not the Bar Manager? Well as you will see his evidence was “……….he (Steven) could win or lose $5,000 in a day”
Again Garry, what is in the police log but not mentioned in court? Well there is police going to several locations on the mainland where Steven would gamble, those instances were never mention at trail. I strongly speculate that it was discovered that he won more than he lost otherwise they would have used that information against him instead of being suppressed.
Q3. Was Mrs Fennell aware of the extent of Steven Fennell’s gambling habit?
Answer Q3 No
XXN 2
R v Fennell [2017] QCA 154 (21 July 2017): Appeal in QLD Supreme Court dismissed
GOTTERSON JA: [22] Motive: The Crown alleged that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased from the following circumstances. The appellant had no substantial savings. In early November 2012, he lost a part-time job delivering catalogues for the Russell Island IGA. He was a regular TAB punter. His wife did not know that he had a TAB account or that he would regularly go to the Pub Paradise TAB agency to bet.[16] An agency employee, Robert Papps, testified that the appellant had said that he was worried about his wife finding out.[17]
[75] …An employee who had begun working at the TAB agency six months prior to the deceased’s death, said that he would visit two or three times a week. His wagers were usually of the order of $50, $100 or $200.[111] He had the occasional win and if it was about $500 or more, he would have it credited to his EFTPOS card.[112
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2017/154.html
When are facts simply not facts? [75] …An employee who had begun working at the TAB agency six months prior to the deceased’s death………. This statement is both true and inaccurate. True “An employee who had begun working at the TAB agency six months prior to the deceased’s death” However she worked in the kitchen and as a waitress for most of that time and she only worked the TAB for a few hours once or twice a week so her comments about “ his wagers were usually of the order of $50, $100 or $200.” were worse that rank speculation. The Bar Manager’s evidence was “……….he (Steven) could win or lose $5,000 in a day”
Garry you said, “you may feel an amount of opposition to the High Court judges ‘glaringly improbable’ view”. Mr and Mrs Matheson gave different versions to the same event. This is a topic that was a problem at trial because there was no questioning going to credibility specifically Mr Matheson who’s evidence did not match his police statements. Stevens’s lawyer and barrister dropped the ball badly here Mr Matheson told so many lies that his lies contradicted his lies. Mr Matheson made a dozen claims to bolster his credibility when fact checked it was pure fantasy.
As to the civil suit that will be another major event, it has been ongoing since 2021.
May Justice Prevail!
Mr Stannus,
A well considered article to which I offer some further thoughts note I say thoughts not arguments, I do so because once considered you may come to change you mind on the issue of the hammer.
If I may inject this often *quoted “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” I will open and close with this statement.
With regards to the banking evidence – that was a black hole of logic where emotions were stirred up by the prosecutor at trial to infer or suggest Mr Fennell was doing bad stuff. Mr Cash used the phrase “financial misdeeds” repeatedly in a short space of time and produced ZERO in the way of evidence to support this assertion.
The phrase “financial misdeeds” was touted successfully by Mr Cash. Let me give this scenario – A taxi driver is hailed and stops to collect the passenger, along the way a conversation is had about this and that. A little further down the road is a police breath testing station, the driver tests positive should the passenger be charged with a crime?
Let me provide another scenario – A taxi driver is hailed and stops to collect the passenger, a little further down the road is a police breath testing station, the passenger is removed from the taxi having been identified as a person of interest in a bank robbery should the driver be charged with a crime?
Both scenario’s involve a taxi driver and passenger any suggested link to connect each to the others crime is not sustainable on the facts. In Mr Fennells case he collected money for Mrs Watson from a bank, that’s it. BUT police need a link ( “financial misdeeds”) so at first they suggest Mrs Watson had no need for the money therefore it was Mr Fennell who needed it. Police and Prosecution suggest gambling ( “financial misdeeds”) as the need the money.
What has happened to the evidence? Why evidence has been substituted for the repeated saying of “financial misdeeds”. The jury ignored the evidence and linked Mr Fennell to “financial misdeeds”.
The evidence at trial demonstrated no fraud or any other inappropriate handling of money by Mr Fennell. For those that wonder who may have changed the numerals 3 to an 8. The answer is Steven it should never have been put to the jury as a question because Steven said so in his witness statement. The only fraud here is Mr Cash suggesting the police /prosecution don’t know who did it when they did!
No extra cash was found in Steven accounts or at his house and the forensic accountant did not link any recent gambling to the cash. The jury ignored the facts and replaced their position with acceptance of “financial misdeeds”.
It appears on the evidence that every transaction at the bank was intended to be checked with Mrs Watson by a confirming telephone call. It appears that there is some confusion. On one occasion this happened or didn’t. The prosecution suggestion was that the call was never made. Mr Holt at the HCA suggested that with no other contradictory evidence it should be accepted that the call was made. The evidence at trial was that the bank staff couldn’t recall. More wrongly asserted “financial misdeeds”?
The prosecution at trial made the point “what did Mrs Watson do (or plan to do with the money) why was it needed”? Mr Cash linked this to Mr Fennell as if he should have an explanation for this event. I have no doubt the jury lapped that suggestion up but that was not Mr Fennell’s role or function in this situation he was merely collecting money for a lady that couldn’t get to the bank. More “financial misdeeds” was the inference.
There was evidence at trial of trades people being at Mr’s Watsons a few days prior to her murder. Mrs Watson had told neighbours in the recent past that she wanted some building work done. With no credit/cheque account and no plastic card to put through a machine for cash Mrs Watson relied 100% on cash to pay tradespeople which was mentioned at trial.
Now if I could just mention a couple of points about the hammer.
According to police the hammer found in the bay so it must be the murder weapon using the logic of co-location.
The hammer could not have been in the bay more than 3 days on the police’s own evidence. Given the importance of this hammer one must ask why the hell it was never tested – it was covered in rust – so how long does rust take kind of an important issue.
Mr & Mrs Matheson’s claim to recognise the hammer both believable and passionate tales and yet both contradicted each others evidence!
David Wright is correct Mr Gatenby (lawyer) and (Adrian Donaldson) both failed basic defence when the witness is suspect attack their credibility. Mr Matheson identified the hammer at the police station, being shown an array of hammers right? NO, No, No, Mr Matheson was shown one hammer. Mr Matheson who had an enormous love and knowledge of tools then failed to identify his screwdriver, and cold chisel WTF?
Mr Matheson further claimed a tool bag was his and that he used it often. Fair enough, sounds reasonable. Sounds reasonable except Mr Matheson was a mountain of a man circa 160kg in 2012 and was always large. The Bunnings tool belt would not have gone around a man with a 46 inch waist. Mr Matheson then added oh I use to carry it over my shoulder to explain the discrepancy.
With respect Mr Stannus the evidence about the hammer was barely admissible it should have been excluded it carried no /little weight. The evidence from Mr & Mrs Matheson while compelling it was contradictory in almost every aspect.
One would like to think a trial is based on evidence and credibility Mr Stannus this was emotion charged with rantings of “financial misdeeds”.
I was going to leave it their but let me support my assertion of emotions overpowering logic I take you to par 565 – 570 video 33:00.
Mr Cash was not content with his rants of “financial misdeeds” he had a back up of plan of misdirection that of “meagre income” . Mr Cash used comments like he delivered junk mail and we know how that pays.
The facts from the ATO were in 2012 Queensland the average full time wage was $1,065.90. A meagre income must; by definition be less than average what was Mr Fennell’s?
I take you to par 855 video 52:40. Not meagre at all.
How do you convince a jury a person is poor when their income is 200% greater than average – why just keep saying “meagre income” over and over.
D J Trump and Joseph Goebbels used repeated lies /misinformation to misinform and distort the truth. Mr Cash has done the same. I say that not as an a mere opinion but as a statement of verifiable fact.
The often *quoted “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Mr Cash repeated many points of misinformation but undoubtedly the two most powerful were 1. “financial misdeeds” and 2. “meagre income”.
It’s not all down to Mr Cash though, the jury clearly questioned nothing and it was made worse by poor defence at trial.
We have all heard the expression “When the shit hits the fan” well it’s coming I suspect when the claim for compensation is finished we will hear more I good deal more about a range of topics from Mr Fennell and two of them undoubtedly will be about Mr Matheson and the suppressed financial accounting evidence.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
*The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Gary I have just read what I had previously written.
Yes proof reading would have been a better option. I believe that one of my replies could be ambiguous or misunderstood because I failed to be more precise.
So let me try again.
Q2. I guess what I’m also asking is: how do you know that it’s not true that Steve Fennell had a TAB account?
Answer Q2. The Forensic accountant only gave evidence about Steven’s gambling at the Pub. The Forensic accountant made no mention of A TAB account. Mr Cash was clever in not directly asking the Forensic accountant about a TAB account, because then the reply would have been on the transcript.
Police sent requests to the TAB for account details – no details came back which to anybody infers that there was no account.
In addition, the police-running log mentions investigations with the TAB specifically with no result.
The police-running log also mentions investigations into other online gambling apps and online betting. No account.
Steven computer and mobile phone were taken and his computer hard drives cloned – no gambling apps on the phone or computer there were no accounts.
With all the information available from police investigations resulting in a total absence of any online gambling the assumption that he had a TAB account was more than simply wrong it was a deliberate position taken by the prosecutor Mr Cash. It was a good bet by Mr Cash as the defence just let it slide.
What is it that journalist say about making a sensational headline “If it bleeds it leads”. Well you get the same result at trial claiming a TAB account exists and make the accused repeatedly defend that position. This was another occasion where his defence team didn’t rebuke a false accusation with force.
What do journalist say about the TRUTH “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”. Here we have a false accusation repeated and repeated because the crux of the prosecution case was to demonstrate, sorry that should be accuse. Accuse Steven of “financial misdeeds” taking money for his TAB account and to gamble. There was no TAB account and there were no proved “financial misdeeds”.
What was never expanded on was the actual (true) financial position with regards to his gambling. The information was researched, collected and stuck in to appendix by the Forensic accountant.
The real position concerning Stevens gambling over the designated period of time was that he was absolutely well ahead. The Forensic accountant had 3 headings in one of her appendix 1. Cash 2. EFTPOS 3. Re-bet
And while Mr Cash made no reference to this chart or appendix it was in evidence and yes the defence said nothing. Now what do you then make of this at the High Court at par 2545 – 2550 video 2:45:45 Mr Byrne either misleads or is unaware of the Forensic accountants investigation which does show cash – so why was this not mentioned?
The prosecutor at trial does not reveal the true position from the evidence and at trial the dopy defence team do nothing. Mr Byrne at the High Court says “No. This is just the deposits that go through the ATM into the bank account, not the cash that goes over the counter either way.”
Not mentioned by anyone is another obvious source of cash accounting for the TAB at the pub which was the daily cash/ EFTPOS reconciliation required by the TAB.
Sloppy investigation, false statements at trial, misdirection at the High court withholding the truth this prosecution that lead to a conviction had it all!!!
I hope that clears up my previous reply.
I have to agree with the first person to reply……. Countess Antonia Maria Violetta Scrivanich who comments “This is a horrendous example of why AI cannot be trusted , and, why use of it should cease now and forever . How can we trust an already flawed Justice System and mis- reporting by Media?”
AI should only be engaged as a working tool to the builder not as the architect.
If we surrender the process of common sense and compassion to simple logic; then we can simply expect errors.
That AI came to this sort of conclusion is a worry, but it appears to have been assisted by human stupidity in this instance. Still I am sure that Mr Fennell is not comforted too much by that fact.
I found myself confused, on reading this article … mentions of AI, mentions of ‘cut and pasting’ from the trial evidence by Appeal Judges and mention of a failure of the QLD Appeals Court Judges to identify an error because they did not act independently.
It would have helped my understanding of the article if the trial DPP’s argument which was [as WCR writes] “factually wrong”, had been described/detailed.
Confusing? I didn’t know whether the error in calling the murdered woman Fennell’s grandmother was in some way to do with the factually wrong error … and I didn’t know (still don’t know) whether the worry about AI extends back in time to Fennel’s failed Appeal or not.
I can see that some form of AI – or automatic correcting application – has been made use of in the production of the HCA transcript of the successful appeal in which Fennell’s conviction was quashed and an order (for an acquittal to be entered) was made.
There are numerous examples of this throughout the transcript. [I am providing links (below) to both the transcript and to the audio-film recording of Fennell’s successful HCA appeal. By having two browser windows open concurrently, one can hear the submissions being made and the judges’ questioning while viewing the transcript via the other window.]
The AI intrusions can be seen in the rendition of forms such as Can’t into Cannot … isn’t into is not and so forth – all of minor import? Fennell gives the example of the word ON being changed to BY.
In Fennell’s ON changed to BY example, I don’t see that anything could ‘turn’ on that error. In fact, it seems to me that though KEANE J said ‘it was a false statement on Mr Fennell’, his (Deanes’s) intent was to highlight what the error at appeal would entail: i.e. that it was wrongly seen at the QLD appeal to be a false statement by Fennell, when in fact, the error was by others.
Justices (from L to R of the screen): Gordon J – Keane J – Kiefel CJ – Nettle J – Edelman J
Transcript: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/other/HCATrans/2019/186.html
Audio & film: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/cases-av/av-2019-09-11
Listen and watch at this point of the proceedings: 3:08:55
MR BYRNE …he’s betting heavily – We can’t [see at: 3:01:40]
KIEFEL CJ inconsistently [single word interpolation! … in transcript AI adds three words and changes the fourth) thus rendering the whole as: “He is betting consistently“]
MR BYRNE “We can’t – in big amounts too – and we can’t put a dollar figure on […]”
ADDENDUM re ERROR AT QLD APPEAL:
[listen to Keane at 3:08:55 … by the way, there does seem to be some momentary pause before Keane says ‘on Mr Fennell‘. Yet it somehow looks as though Keane’s lip-mouth movements are out of sync with the audio, or failing that that there is some momentary imperfection in the audio recording…]
I read your comments and must say, well researched.
I know Steven well and supported him throughout the entire matter.
The problem in Steven’s position or rather his attempts to explain his position are:-
1. That he is not legally trained and sometimes gets off topic. That is not to say that his arguments are not valid it is more that there is so much material to review.
2. That the mistakes made were not confined to the courts. The police requested the (CMC now CCC) drag Steven in for questioning and while little can be said specifically (because to speak of the hearing can find you in prison)
however the actual evidence that police presented to the CMC as the foundation for motive was simply wrong, and inaccurate. As a matter of record it was not provided to either Steven or his lawyer at the CMC hearing.
3.Charges of perjury were never laid with regards to some witnesses who have since passed.
4. Not all the material collected was entered into evidence and police will only disclose material that was used at trial. This is currently being challenged in the civil claim.
I read you comments and I am in complete awe.
Am I correct making the presumption that you are legally trained? So few people have taken the time to watch the HCA video let alone compare the context to the written text.
If I may venture off the AI topic, but on stay on the case what do you make of a statement made by the prosecution at trial, repeated at Appeal and dogmatically repeated in the HCA that was simply not true.
Th context is found in the HCA video at circa 2:51: 25 or par 2625 -2630.
Specifically the comment that Mrs Fennell did not know that her husband had a TAB account. I mention this because Steven had NO account at the TAB or ANY gambling accounts online. The claim that he had a TAB account was never established at trial. Mr Cash at trial asked Mrs Fennell did she know her husband had a TAB account which she answered No.
This question was damaging to the defence because of the way it was worded. Similar to the age old question asked by lawyers in a domestic violence case
” MR Smith when did you stop beating your wife” to which there is no answer that does not damage the husbands account of events.
The statement made at trial by the prosecutor Mr Glen Cash and again in the HCA by Mr Byrne QC was not simply misleading; it was factually incorrect. The purpose of the prosecution making the statement can only be speculative but logic would infer that it was in the broad sense to suggest some kind of dishonesty by Steven either with his wife or in his statements to police.
How does one remedy this incorrect statement?
Hi Andrew,
As the person mentioned and directly affected by the actions of AI I confess to a great apprehension regarding the growing use of AI in the area of law enforcement. Could we be witnessing the early stages police suspect determination and of jury replacements for minor cases?
I can imagine governments embracing the use of AI technology to solve problems or achieve goals. AI could be used by police to suggest suspects based on information collected, input and then asked for an calculated hypothesis.
Imagine sometime in the near future a court process where the prosecution and defence are conducting arguments and establishing their relative positions solely from the inputting of documents, witness statements, photographs, video, CCTV, DNA reports etc.
Additionally the police could use AI to select the likelihood of a suspect; and the justice system could follow up with AI prosecuting by calculating the odds of innocence or guilt. Convicted persons could then be transported by a self driving prison van directly to prison.
The governments will be well pleased at the purported costs efficiencies.
There could be a problem with the appeal process if it were to be conducted by AI.
Welcome to *1984.
*Nineteen Eighty-Four (also published as 1984) is a dystopian novel and cautionary tale by English writer George Orwell. It was published on 8 June 1949 by Secker & Warburg as Orwell’s ninth and final book completed in his lifetime.
A valid warning, Steve.
Steven. Some say George Orwell was taken out by MI5 . “Defenders of the wealthy”. The Ministry of Truth (no less) may have done the job on poor George . His snott blocker moustache was a cover (maybe) for his true political/ social beliefs . A true social democrat maybe ? Animal Farm – the system in Queensland for the jerry mander years – police rule OK. The Appeals Courts will never deliver a fair go for the mug punters – judges judging judges – sure smacks of Animal Farm – Police judging police integrity -insane ! English Style CCRC – don’t be silly. Using AI to remotely change red light cameras to 3 seconds from 4 – worth a pretty penny – manipulation of privatised speed cameras – let’s see you defend against that Orwellian little trick . AI rules OK ! Absolutely nothing surprising about Steven Fennell being confirmed guilty by the judge mates of the sentencing judge mate. The Appeals Court System in Australia is a laughing stock and a disgraceful abomination !
Andrew,
I do not have more to add to my previous comments, I simply wanted to thank – you for giving me a venue to vent.
Mainstream media has an unfathomable aversion to all matters concerning social justice, I suspect it to be political but who can tell?
Andrew……please continue to be a voice for those that have no rich or powerful mates to promote there cause.
AI will be of great use to mankind in sifting through mountains of data however; when tasked with expressing an opinion one only has to manipulate the input material to arrive at a preferred outcome.
This instance of a flawed and incorrect position deprives a man and his family the opportunity to move on.
I wish Steven Fennell a positive outcome in his civil case which will not provide a measure of compensation but may have the police consider using bulldozing tactics to obtain a conviction.
Quoting: “AI …. to manipulate the input material to arrive at a preferred outcome.”
Yesterday a member of my family dropped a hot iron on the carpet. We googled what to do. Google is led at the top now by AI, whose advice was utter rubbish. Further down google’s suggestions of what to do, a Reddit thread written by real people was full of useful advice.
That’s the second time this week I’ve wasted my time looking at the AI garbage at the top of google’s listings before finding valid information further down google.
AI reminds me of Mark Perlin at the Robert Xie trial (Case 11 on the top RHS of this website). I have a hunch that Perlin manipulated the input material to arrive at a preferred outcome for his employer (the Prosecutors of Xie). I’ll try to find out more about whether he did.
Hello Andrew and readers,
I have been following this case, the trial, the Appeal court outcome and subsequent H.C.A acquittal. I read from the stories in the media, and the exposed facts in the case.
Given the abject lack of relevant evidence collect by police this was a travesty that this matter got to court. One only needs to look at the H.C.A taking 4 minutes to pronounce an acquittal. For those that wonder why a retrial was not ordered, it was because a retrial would have been based on an error of procedure. Based on the many flaws in the trial and Appeals court from flawed probabilistic reasoning, and the admission of evidence that should never been allowed a unanimous verdict for acquittal, was the only legal and logical course open to the 5 Judges at the High Court of Australia.
With so little evidence Police set about to collect nearly 800 witness statements hoping to jag something that could be used to convict. Ultimately; police vetoed most of the statements leaving circa 300. Turns out most of them were also irrelevant.
Two of the police’s own expert witnesses made fundamental errors. The first being the handwriting expert who got it wrong so badly he was excused as a witness so that the court could decide how to proceed. No doubt we will hear more of tactic of the prosecutor to use a handwriting expert
The second was the police forensic accountant. I expect one could write a book on not just the number of errors that occurred prior to trial, but the importance of those witnesses including failure to verify the accuracy of some witnesses assertions made in police statements but ignored at trial.
While not an error this deserves a mention ……..one wonders why so much time and money was used to have police DNA experts on the witness stand declare that there was zero possibility of the relevant DNA being Mr Fennell’s but DNA markers did point to others. The short answer was the jury heard DNA and switched off. Not one jot of any of the DNA testimony pointed to Mr Fennell.
Mr Fennell does not strike me as a person to let this injustice just fade away. Win or lose his claim for compensation I expect the public will hear more from him.
Petrie. “While not an error” ! Sounds like a lot bloody worse than an error ! Totally ignoring the police DNA experts markers pointing to the guilty person /s . The jury heard DNA and this clear evidence of Steven Fennells innocents was explained away back in the jury room by the Queensland style jury implant – (stackee) The judge was maybe sleeping off his yoghurt lunch ? How is it that the defence team didn’t go bananas ? The Queensland jury implants usually get themselves selected foremen because of their previous jury service to the prosecution. One of the stacking methods has been well described, eg, Carter enquiry 1991. Other WCR contributors have described in the past their personal experience as part of a stacked Queensland jury . One other unlikely explanation is the unlucky coincidence – a jury of morons ? Don’t laugh – take a look at many of our Appeals Court findings around Australia. A jury finding an innocent citizen guilty of murder is a very serious matter . Upon sentencing , each jury member should have to explain their thinking to their victim- after all the victim may have a Ray Bailey done on them with the government rope – or 40 years in prison – Derrick Bromley.
There are 2 principles that seem to cover so many variants of life’s Justice and injustice , plus freedom and lack of it. 1. William Blackstone ‘better 10 guilty men escape than one innocent who suffers’. Benjamin Franklin later changed the ratio to 100 . Such was his value of Justice. 2. Evelyn Beatrice Hall said ..’I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ‘ These two principles can apply to almost every aspect of a good life.
I came across a classic example, where one little word changed the entire story. It was in the case of the magistrate, accused of child abuse (and still lingering in a SA prison after 25 years.) The transcript of court proceedings read:
(Prosecutor: “You loved that boy ….” (child so and so).
Defendant: “Yes, I did”.
Problem was, the transcript should have read: “You liked that boy”.
Somebody had later amended the official transcript in pen.
There is a big difference, an older man like a school teacher, liking a student or loving them!
Perhaps, even stenographers can get caught up in the avalanche, when police try everything to win a case, as to not be embarrassed by their stuff up.
We always knew AI generated copy was going to be problematic. Just the other day in the SMH, there was a running commentary about a tennis match in The Australian Open. It was gooblygook. No-one had checked it. The headlines were all nonsense. The commentators asked what tactics would an AI suggest when Alex De Minnaur was playing (and losing) the set. More rubbish, trawling through the history, instead of assessing his fitness on the day and relevant conditions and mindset. Shocking stuff.
Hi Andrew. I just had a call from a lawyer who went through my petition to AG.
He basically went back to the normal approach. New evidence required. ! Yet the old evidence is implausible and inconsistent or just plain perjury. I need , as they did for Pell , some jurisdiction , to review the evidence and basically say , police ignored exculpatory evidence DPP .. same. My lawyer same ! So they say it was your lawyers fault . So what ? The police and DPP just ignored evidence flaws that were in their own brief. My inadequate representation does not excuse police and DPP proceeding against me even though they had evidence of impossible statements and asked no questions. What or where is Justice ???
Justice? Hmmm…maybe in the AG’s bottom drawer, in your case.
This is a horrendous example of why AI cannot be trusted , and, why use of it should cease now and forever . How can we trust an already flawed Justice System and mis- reporting by Media?