Andrew L. Urban
It must have been quietly heartbreaking for Rowena Greenaway to come across this document on the eve of Christmas 2025, written on 9 August 1962, attesting to her now husband Noel Greenaway’s “integrity and high personal standards”. A couple of years or so after that document was written, Noel is alleged to have committed scores of hideous crimes of sexual and physical abuse on teenagers at an institution. Rowena couldn’t show it to Noel – he is in prison serving a 20 year sentence.
“…Mr Greenaway has continued to apply himself, he takes pride in the efficient discharge of his responsibilities and will voluntarily work beyond his normal hours of duty to cope with any pressure of work. He is always on the alert for any method of streamlining of his routine with the object of improving its overall efficiency.
“He has continued to show an interest in the sporting activities of the inmates. And regularly assists on a Saturday with the supervision of sporting fixtures. Mr Greenaway is a young man of integrity and high personal standards whose conduct and services have been eminently satisfactory.”
The Conduct and Services report was effectively a character reference written by the Superintendent at Parramatta Girls Training School around the time Rowena met Noel. She was working at nearby Parramatta Hospital in pathology, where all the tests were processed for the PGTS inmates. The samples were delivered on Tuesday and Thursday each week by senior officers from PGTS. As the clerk, Noel would come in every second Thursday with one of the senior officers and after dropping off the samples they went to the bank to collect the cash to pay staff. “After a while,” says Rowena, “Noel came a bit more often…”
A dozen more glowing character references were addressed to the trial judge for him to consider when sentencing Noel (there is no mention of them in his sentencing remarks).
First of all, it’s a bit late at sentencing. Shouldn’t the jury hear them?
Second, the uncorroborated testimony of claimants in sexual crimes is now taken as the evidence; in those circumstances, the credibility of the complainants is paramount. Shouldn’t the jury hear character references about these witnesses during the trial?
In his book, Presumption of Evil, Urban traces the Greenaway family’s nightmare from the phone call that alerted Noel that he would be named – the next day – in the Royal Commission, through the trial and the appeal, to the day he met the ‘evil’ Noel face to face in a supermax prison.
Happy Christmas to Noel and his family and to all those wrongfully convicted.
Andrew. Have never been impressed with the idea that someone who works in the prison garden or library…helps other prisoners in different ways …is compliant and well behaved in prison..that this,or character references somehow prove innocents – or even likely innocence..
Doubt about a conviction or complete disbelief is more likely from me if the flexible Maniac Manockistic forensic evidence is presented by a Tedeschiastic Police Prosecutors mendacious lacky – Combined with a much practiced screen play and bamboozling irrelevant waffling gobbledegook for a quite likely very carefully (stacked) or halfwitted jury.
Monetry rewards (large ones) always throws up a red flag..especially if the claimed event was 50 years ago or the events took place in a time and place or location that didn’t exist. The accused clearly wasn’t at that place !
Regardless of their character before – during trial – in prison – previous convictions or behaviour or any other dubious irrelevant waffle.
Some clearly innocent citizens have been extremely annoying in the court room …and a permanent troublesome pain in prison – they flatly refuse to kowtow .
When i was in prison- one fellow would scream very loudly and often ” coppers are cunts”. Even after the warders helped him have bruising falls. VC material ?
Dont judge a book by its cover
dear reader – beg-buy-steal Andrews books – get a “forensic ” look at some troublesome court house shenanigans…
Andrew. It’s doubtful when exposed to the Pub Test that a particular Sheila had a yarn with a snake in a tree as to the desirability of particular apples ?
Even more doubtful that Noel Greenaway or any other of the Wrongfully Convicted could have committed offences when proven- sufficiently to pass the Pub Test – to have not been at the scene.
Mistaken identity- for example- has been cited quite often as major cause of wrongful convictions.
Not being present at the time – or even the year- in a place that didn’t even exist – now that’s a doozy !
Monetary reward (lovely moolah) has been proven to overcome such inconvenient truths..combined with flexible forensics – impossible time and date of alleged behaviour.
Bamboozle the jury with Mountains of Creative Screen Play readings..often totally irrelevant or blatantly dishonest . Here’s one question for the Wrongfully Convicted Pub Test..
Are ALL Police Prosecutors
Terrorists – or just “many” of the bastards?