Andrew L. Urban
The trouble with certainty without good evidence in crime investigation is that it easily leads to a wrongful conviction. We have reported on several cases to show this. One former detective has now claimed his ‘certainty’ should prevail; it isn’t enough.
“I am 100% certain of their guilt,” boasts the former detective who charged both Noel Greenaway and Frank Valentine of multiple historical sexual abuse crimes.
His email arrived the same day this week that Steven Fennell, exonerated of a murder conviction, posted a comment which seems, in part, to respond to the claim of certainty: “In my recent police complaint I wrote that tunnel vision begins ‘the moment uncertainty is replaced with certainty in the absence of proof.’ Once that happens, every subsequent act, from interviewing witnesses to cataloguing exhibits — is subconsciously filtered through confirmation bias. It produces what I described as an echo chamber of investigation, where dissenting facts are ignored because they do not reinforce the chosen storyline.”
Tim Paul, the former detective sergeant, went on to insist that “Both men are guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and Greenaway deserves to die in gaol the same as his fellow putrid peadophile associate did. If the best you can do is bring my credibility into question to satisfy your pathetic deluded theory then your true colours are on show for all to see.”
It is unsurprising that he holds these views as my offer to give him copies of my books exploring the evidence in the two cases was rebuffed: “You are entirely welcome to your opinion, as misguided as it is. I have no interest in reading your conspiracy theories.”
I maintain that bringing his credibility into question is not the best I can do; it is the least. Had he read my books he would realise that I bring into question the credibility of the entire criminal justice system for its failure to deliver justice in these cases. It is not an opinion or a theory; there are no conspiracy theories to be found in my pages. I question the validity of the convictions for lack of reliable evidence to support the verdicts beyond reasonable doubt. The say-so of claimants alone isn’t enough to destroy a man’s life and family, especially when the claims rely on memories buried under almost five decades of time.
What Tim Paul has shown is that once you restrict your investigative vision, it becomes your permanent vision, as it did with other former detectives so infected (former Tasmanian Detective Inspector Peter Powell’s adherence to his ‘vision’ in the Sue Neill-Fraser case comes first to mind). Better not be exposed to the possibility of feeling to have contributed to a wrongful conviction … It is quite understandable.
As a 2015 Griffith University study of 71 wrongful convictions found, police caused or contributed to 55% of them – the most of all cohorts.
Andrew (& David) – you both are enlightened and terrifying me at the same time. This is my greatest fear ATM. I am unable to divulge our situation and trying to stay in front of the investigation and DPP.
Tunnel, biased, and misogonistic views are glaringly evident in the case against Susan Neill-Fraser’s case: together with lack of policing, scientific, and ethical skills.
Andrew, I would like to add some objective input as someone that has been a supporter of Stevens for a long time.
You are free to use this in whole or part or in support of further articles.
In the annals of Australian justice, the wrongful conviction of Steven Fennell for the murder of Liselotte Watson stands as a stark testament to the corrosive power of confirmation bias and tunnel vision within a police investigation. A comprehensive review of the case reveals that without the investigators’ preconceived notion of Fennell’s guilt, he could not have been considered a viable suspect. This initial bias, particularly championed by Detective Sergeant Justin Suffolk, became a self-fulfilling prophecy, driving a relentless pursuit that persisted through numerous failed fraud investigations and led authorities to embrace testimony from the most unreliable of sources, including a necromancer and a prison informant whose story defied the laws of physics.
From its inception, the investigation into Watson’s murder was tainted by what the formal police complaint describes as “detective myopia.” Rather than allowing the evidence to guide the inquiry, investigators, seemingly fixated on Fennell’s past, adopted a theory of guilt and sought to confirm it. DS Suffolk, in his relentless pursuit of a financial motive, initiated approximately twenty separate fraud investigations into Fennell’s life. Each one failed to produce a shred of evidence. An objective investigator, faced with such repeated failures, would be compelled to reconsider their primary suspect. However, for an investigator in the grips of confirmation bias, the “Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence.” Every failed investigation was not a sign of a flawed premise, but a prompt to dig deeper, to find the fraud that had to be there.
This unwavering commitment to a predetermined narrative created an environment where the absurd became plausible. As the complaint details, with no tangible evidence forthcoming, the investigation turned to a necromancer as a major witness. The acceptance of such a source is a glaring symptom of an investigation that has lost its objective footing, willing to entertain the supernatural to bolster a failing case. Every investigator is entitled to investigate, but not at the expense of the integrity of the exposed facts. When tunnel vision takes over, theories, assertions, and allegations are presented as facts, and in this case, the ‘fact’ of Fennell’s guilt was paramount.
The reliance on a prison informant, Lorenzo Suarez, marks the zenith of this investigative bias. Suarez claimed that Fennell had confessed to him, but the details of this “confession” were so logically flawed that they required the use of time travel. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) initially entertained this testimony, allowing it to be heard at the committal hearing. It was only later, when someone within the DPP acknowledged that “the math didn’t math,” that Suarez was dropped from the trial. The very fact that such a patently impossible story was ever considered credible is a testament to the powerful influence of confirmation bias; the desire to believe in Fennell’s guilt was so strong that it momentarily suspended the laws of physics.
Even as the trial was underway, the ghost of the fraud theory persisted. The complaint highlights a text exchange between the prosecutor and Fennell’s lawyer regarding possible fraud, even when, empirically, the collected police evidence showed there wasn’t any. This is the ultimate demonstration of how confirmation bias can take over an investigation: the evidence is ignored in favour of the established narrative. The unwavering belief in Fennell’s “financial misdeeds” had become an article of faith, impervious to the reality of the facts.
The wrongful conviction of Steven Fennell was not a simple mistake; it was the inevitable outcome of an investigation that began with a conclusion and worked backwards. Confirmation bias directed the initial suspicion, sustained the inquiry through a litany of failed investigations, and led to the embrace of fantastical testimony. The relentless pursuit of a fraud that never was, even in the face of contrary evidence, demonstrates how a preconceived narrative can corrupt the search for truth. Without this initial, unwavering gaze of guilt, Steven Fennell’s name would never have been whispered in connection with the murder of Liselotte Watson.