Australia Australia - Tegan Lane, 2 days old, Sydney, 14 Sept 1996 *K. Lane guilty*

[Via Marple]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

Confirmation bias - read the above - I think we are all guilty of it. This is such a polarising case.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

Confirmation bias - read the above - I think we are all guilty of it. This is such a polarising case.

Interesting reading and good point, Via Marple! I totally see what you are saying. I take that on board but I think time will tell in this case.

I do wonder if confirmation bias influenced the police here.

I think the most significant piece of evidence to come out of the Exposed ABC program is that comfit. Of course, yes it could be any body. Terry Dunnett believes Keli was describing a real person. He does appear to be an experienced and credible expert in this area.

Why was the comfit not done in the start?

Forget the name and focus on what he looks like as it was said in Exposed.

Did the police not do this because they did not believe Keli (and she has certainly given them reason to!) and had predetermined that she was making this "Andrew" up and therefore there was no point?

It does seem like a very big oversight as BOHII pointed out.

 

[The Observer]

I think the most significant piece of evidence to come out of the Exposed ABC program is that comfit. Of course, yes it could be any body. Terry Dunnett believes Keli was describing a real person. He does appear to be an experienced and credible expert in this area.

*snipped by me
I don't doubt she is describing a real person. Not at all. However who that person actually is, is another story. There's several people in the surf lifesaving and rugby circle that look a lot like this comfit. Doesn't make them 'Andrew'. For me personally, Terry saying she was describing a real person wasn't as compelling as Exposed team thought it was. I'm not saying she wasn't describing this 'Andrew' or the person she percieves to be 'Andrew' but hopefully you see my point.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

*snipped by me
I don't doubt she is describing a real person. Not at all. However who that person actually is, is another story. There's several people in the surf lifesaving and rugby circle that look a lot like this comfit. Doesn't make them 'Andrew'. For me personally, Terry saying she was describing a real person wasn't as compelling as Exposed team thought it was. I'm not saying she wasn't describing this 'Andrew' or the person she percieves to be 'Andrew' but hopefully you see my point.

snipped by me
….
I think the most significant piece of evidence to come out of the Exposed ABC program is that comfit. Of course, yes it could be any body. Terry Dunnett believes Keli was describing a real person. He does appear to be an experienced and credible expert in this area.

Why was the comfit not done in the start?
..
It does seem like a very big oversight as BOHII pointed out.

Yes, The Observer, I understand your point perfectly because I made the same point. Yes, it could be anybody. And it follows that that does not prove it is "Andrew".

My point is why was a comfit not done. Was there a bias here? Was Keli predetermined to be lying, therefore the comfit was not done because there would be no point. The investigation continued to try and find "Andrew" but that task is made so much harder without having that comfit from the start?

 

[The Observer]

Yes, The Observer, I understand your point perfectly because I made the same point. Yes, it could be anybody. And it follows that that does not prove it is "Andrew".

My point is why was a comfit not done. Was there a bias here? Was Keli predetermined to be lying, therefore the comfit was not done because there would be no point. The investigation continued to try and find "Andrew" but that task is made so much harder without having that comfit from the start?

My apologies.

I can only assume that due to her pattern of lying they felt it was fruitless? I mean I can see it from both points of view. She did give them a very generic description and there were no distinct features. IMO it was damned either way. Comfit and a name can work against you publically. "Oh it kinda looks like X but that's not his name mustn't be him.." Oh I know a
Andrew or Andrew M/Norris but he doesn't look like that mustn't be him.." etc. Can you trust a confit? Can you trust a name? Can you trust both? Can you trust either?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

My apologies.

I can only assume that due to her pattern of lying they felt it was fruitless? I mean I can see it from both points of view. She did give them a very generic description and there were no distinct features. IMO it was damned either way. Comfit and a name can work against you publically. "Oh it kinda looks like X but that's not his name mustn't be him.." Oh I know a
Andrew or Andrew M/Norris but he doesn't look like that mustn't be him.." etc. Can you trust a confit? Can you trust a name? Can you trust both? Can you trust either?

Yes, I see your point The Observer and am leaning towards the bias explanation too.

By not doing this comfit, aren't the police also denying Keli the chance that one person could come forward and identify this person? Maybe it would have taken only one person with a strong lead!

Yes, peoples perceptions differ and yes, someone who knows this person might discount it, BUT Keli was totally denied the chance that anyone could possibly come forward and identify this person based on what he looks like from the start? Is that really a fair investigation?

I think not, and yes, I do believe that this comfit is an important piece of the puzzle even now.

 

[The Observer]

You're not legally entitled to a comfit though. There's no law stating police have to provide one for every investigation. She didn't ask for one as far as we know either. If it was a significant piece to finding him why didn't defense have one done prior to inquest? I understand the prosecution have the burden of proof, but that aside, it was in their client's best interest to have him located.

When Chris Murphy took a look into her case pro-bono he had a former detective (now PI) as well as 2 other PI's investigating her case. Kept saying he had strong leads for a couple of years. Why didn't they get a comfit done? These people weren't amateurs there's got to be a reason why no one thought it was important to do so surely!?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

You're not legally entitled to a comfit though. There's no law stating police have to provide one for every investigation. She didn't ask for one as far as we know either. If it was a significant piece to finding him why didn't defense have one done prior to inquest? I understand the prosecution have the burden of proof, but that aside, it was in their client's best interest to have him located.

When Chris Murphy took a look into her case pro-bono he had a former detective (now PI) as well as 2 other PI's investigating her case. Kept saying he had strong leads for a couple of years. Why didn't they get a comfit done? These people weren't amateurs there's got to be a reason why no one thought it was important to do so surely!?

Keli is entitled to be treated fairly and without bias, surely.

A two day old baby is missing, this is serious. Keli has named another person of interest, who could also be a suspect.

I haven't located a copy of the police operations procedures manual for NSW. May be someone else knows where to find one. It would be good to know.

I have located a public edition of the Queensland Police Operations Procedures Manual though. https://www.police.qld.gov.au/corporatedocs/OperationalPolicies/Documents/OPM/Chapter2.pdf

Surely, NSW police are obliged to use similar techniques but someone else may know more, as this is not an area I am familiar with at all. The Queensland manual outlines the means identification to be used by police for identifying suspects and at the head of that and stated in 2.11 is the need for police to ensure fairness in identification of suspects. Sure, it does not make it compulsory to use a comfit but there is nothing else to go on here.

The means of identification used by police are listed in the Queensland Manual at 2.11.3 and include:

• selection from crowds;
• photographic, including photo boards and digital photographic line-up boards;
• Comfit;
• dock;
• DNA;
• stylometric or authorship;
• handwriting;
• voice;
• spectrograph or voice print;
• similar fact;
• fingerprint, palmprint and footprint;
• forensic procedures;
• video tape; and
• computer generated images.

They have nothing on "Andrew". No DNA. No handwriting, no photographs that witnesses can identify him from. There is nothing!! Surely that makes the comfit necessary.

2.11.8 of the Queensland manual refers to the Queensland policy and it is clear, that it is a method of identification that is to be used. Queensland also has a separate Comfit Handbook which I also have not found.

You make an interesting point about the former detectives and now PI's that Chris Murphy got to look over this case. How can they have leads for a couple of years and still not come up with anything? Why didn't they commission a comfit?

Honestly, IMO the comfit was not the only error of the investigation.

I wonder if the ABC will interview these former detectives and PI on camera and show where the investigation went wrong at the grass roots level; correct the bias; correct the incorrect assumptions, have a number of good identifications of "Andrew" from the comfit and therefore find "Andrew" in Episode 4. One can only hope.

 

[Via Marple]

Interesting reading and good point, Via Marple! I totally see what you are saying. I take that on board but I think time will tell in this case.

I do wonder if confirmation bias influenced the police here.

I think the most significant piece of evidence to come out of the Exposed ABC program is that comfit. Of course, yes it could be any body. Terry Dunnett believes Keli was describing a real person. He does appear to be an experienced and credible expert in this area.

Why was the comfit not done in the start?

Forget the name and focus on what he looks like as it was said in Exposed.

Did the police not do this because they did not believe Keli (and she has certainly given them reason to!) and had predetermined that she was making this "Andrew" up and therefore there was no point?

It does seem like a very big oversight as BOHII pointed out.

Confirmation bias is a common logical flaw. In this case it can be anyone, police, journalist, social worker, juror, judge, academic, psychiatrist, comfit artist... IMO they all show sufficient emotion about this case, to then suffer from this bias. Jurors we never know who they were... So just guessing.

I am going to get a copy of Nice Girl from my library in a few weeks. Guess what my conclusion will be after reading?

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Confirmation bias is a common logical flaw. In this case it can be anyone, police, journalist, social worker, juror, judge, academic, psychiatrist, comfit artist... IMO they all show sufficient emotion about this case, to then suffer from this bias. Jurors we never know who they were... So just guessing.

I am going to get a copy of Nice Girl from my library in a few weeks. Guess what my conclusion will be after reading?

I hope the ABC journalists are not so emotionally involved to show confirmation bias. At every step I think they have been conscious of it. Caro Meldrum-Hanna has said that she really thought Professor Buist and Terry Dunnett would come back and confirm that Keli is a liar and that she could then extricate herself from this filth. Caro wanted an out and I don't believe she has found that reason to pull the plug yet!

Oh, I'll take a really wild guess and say that reading "Nice Girl" will not change your view at all . There is plenty in their to be cynical and suspicious about. I however do think the author shows confirmation bias. She makes some unbalanced and defamatory statements which are her opinion only and doesn't present the alternate view.

A much better book is Allison Langdon's "The child that never was". I find it a much more balanced and unbiased account of the evidence at the coronial inquest. I wish there was an equivalent book about all the evidence presented at trial. "Nice Girl" is not in depth enough for me.

 

[JLZ]

I hope the ABC journalists are not so emotionally involved to show confirmation bias. At every step I think they have been conscious of it. Caro Meldrum-Hanna has said that she really thought Professor Buist and Terry Dunnett would come back and confirm that Keli is a liar and that she could then extricate herself from this filth. Caro wanted an out and I don't believe she has found that reason to pull the plug yet!

Oh, I'll take a really wild guess and say that reading "Nice Girl" will not change your view at all . There is plenty in their to be cynical and suspicious about. I however do think the author shows confirmation bias. She makes some unbalanced and defamatory statements which are her opinion only and doesn't present the alternate view.

A much better book is Allison Langdon's "The child that never was". I find it a much more balanced and unbiased account of the evidence at the coronial inquest. I wish there was an equivalent book about all the evidence presented at trial. "Nice Girl" is not in depth enough for me.

Can you reproduce any extracts from the Langdon book?

I just don't know what to say when you imply that anyone can be in doubt about Keli Lane being a liar. Even you<modsnip - condescending> admitted "Keli tells stories".

Edit--most of first paragraph deleted on rereading your post.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

Can you reproduce any extracts from the Langdon book?

I just don't know what to say when you imply that anyone can be in doubt about Keli Lane being a liar. Even you <modsnip - condescending> admitted "Keli tells stories".

Edit--most of first paragraph deleted on rereading your post.

I am no doubt about Keli being a liar. Where did I say that there is any doubt? Yes, Keli tells stories. Caro thought Prof Buist and Terry Buist would both come back and say that Keli was lying about the story she is telling the ABC now, they did not. Prof Buist came back and said there was a possibility Tegan was alive and could not diagnose her as a pathological liar. Terry Dunnett's BS detector did not go off. Make of that what you will.

I am in doubt that the interpretation that she is a murderer because she is a liar and the consciousness of guilt lies being circumstantial evidence of murder. I think there are other reasons that she lied. But that is not what I was talking about above.

<modsnip - response to snipped part of quoted post>

Allison Langdon's book is not electronic. It goes through different witness accounts. Who's evidence are you interested in?

 

[JLZ]

I am no doubt about Keli being a liar. Where did I say that there is any doubt? Yes, Keli tells stories. Caro thought Prof Buist and Terry Buist would both come back and say that Keli was lying about the story she is telling the ABC now, they did not. Prof Buist came back and said there was a possibility Tegan was alive and could not diagnose her as a pathological liar. Terry Dunnett's BS detector did not go off. Make of that what you will.

I am in doubt that the interpretation that she is a murderer because she is a liar and the consciousness of guilt lies being circumstantial evidence of murder. I think there are other reasons that she lied. But that is not what I was talking about above.

Getting paid for my trouble. OMG!! That's scandalous and that allegation should be withdrawn. I am certainly not. I have no connection whatsoever to the Lanes, to Keli, the ABC or anyone else. Really, I don't. I just wish to point out that, I think there is another view here than the one that keeps getting bandied about here that Keli is guilty. I don't think she is. I stick by that and no one is paying me to say that. I swear by almighty God!

Allison Langdon's book is not electronic. It goes through different witness accounts. Who's evidence are you interested in?

OK I withdraw it. I think mods are in the process of editing it out. I did have an impression you had at least some connection to the Lanes, which would be fine, not a reason for someone not to participate, but I accept your assurance that you don't.

I may reply to the rest of your post presently. I wanted to get that up first.

 

[JLZ]

Caro Meldrum-Hanna has said that she really thought Professor Buist and Terry Dunnett would come back and confirm that Keli is a liar and that she could then extricate herself from this filth.

I am no doubt about Keli being a liar. Where did I say that there is any doubt? Yes, Keli tells stories. Caro thought Prof Buist and Terry Buist would both come back and say that Keli was lying about the story she is telling the ABC now, they did not. Prof Buist came back and said there was a possibility Tegan was alive and could not diagnose her as a pathological liar. Terry Dunnett's BS detector did not go off. Make of that what you will.

I am in doubt that the interpretation that she is a murderer because she is a liar and the consciousness of guilt lies being circumstantial evidence of murder. I think there are other reasons that she lied. But that is not what I was talking about above.

(both snipped)

I took you more literally as saying that if Caro was finally satisfied that Keli was a liar, she would end her involvement. I didn't think you were saying that you thought Keli was not a liar, though you tend to minimize the business ("Keli tells stories", "gets details wrong").

I did wonder what Anne Buist meant with her answer to Caro's question whether Keli was a pathological liar. As I recall she said, after hesitating, "Not as a diagnosis, no." Is that because "pathological liar" is not a diagnosis, not a classification available to her as a psychiatrist? I believe she indicated that there were signs of Keli lying specifically regarding "Andrew Norris". I agree that AB did not rule out Keli being innocent of murder.

The comfit maker said that he believed Keli was describing an actual person. That proves that Keli has at some stage seen a human being. It is not evidence of anything in relation to Keli's innocence or guilt; at best it might be a lead.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

(both snipped)

I took you more literally as saying that if Caro was finally satisfied that Keli was a liar, she would end her involvement. I didn't think you were saying that you thought Keli was not a liar, though you tend to minimize the business ("Keli tells stories", "gets details wrong").

I did wonder what Anne Buist meant with her answer to Caro's question whether Keli was a pathological liar. As I recall she said, after hesitating, "Not as a diagnosis, no." Is that because "pathological liar" is not a diagnosis, not a classification available to her as a psychiatrist? I believe she indicated that there were signs of Keli lying specifically regarding "Andrew Norris". I agree that AB did not rule out Keli being innocent of murder.

The comfit maker said that he believed Keli was describing an actual person. That proves that Keli has at some stage seen a human being. It is not evidence of anything in relation to Keli's innocence or guilt; at best it might be a lead.

I think Caro was looking for an out. She said it in the Mamma Mia podcast but the experts did not give her that. She is still going, so she hasn't pulled the plug yet and has promised to chase down any leads. Her last post on Facebook was interesting to say the least!

I agree that Prof Buist did indicate there are signs that Keli is still not telling the truth about the "Andrew Morris/Norris" situation, too superficial, body language changed. That was very interesting but no details were given as to what details Keli gave Prof Buist about this "Andrew" fellow so it is hard to form a view about what might be true and what isn't regarding that.

Yes, the comfit could be any one. It might not be "Andrew". I actually think it is but time will tell. I do think it is a very important lead though.

 

[JLZ]

I think Caro was looking for an out. She said it in the Mamma Mia podcast but the experts did not give her that. She is still going, so she hasn't pulled the plug yet and has promised to chase down any leads. Her last post on Facebook was interesting to say the least!

I agree that Prof Buist did indicate there are signs that Keli is still not telling the truth about the "Andrew Morris/Norris" situation, too superficial, body language changed. That was very interesting but no details were given as to what details Keli gave Prof Buist about this "Andrew" fellow so it is hard to form a view about what might be true and what isn't regarding that.

Yes, the comfit could be any one. It might not be "Andrew". I actually think it is but time will tell. I do think it is a very important lead though.

I haven't listened to that podcast but I think I see what you mean. Caro had Keli say that she would be truthful in talking to her. Caro's said she'll chase all leads but that doesn't mean every new variation to the story for the rest of time. If Keli were to say tomorrow that actually she gave the baby to Andrew Nguyen and he was an apprentice plumber and he didn't look anything like that blonde guy and he lived two blocks away in a flat somewhat resembling the one she pointed out, but she had good personal reasons for all those lies, Caro could fairly walk away.

 

[CuriosityKilledtheCat]

I haven't listened to that podcast but I think I see what you mean. Caro had Keli say that she would be truthful in talking to her. Caro's said she'll chase all leads but that doesn't mean every new variation to the story for the rest of time. If Keli were to say tomorrow that actually she gave the baby to Andrew Nguyen and he was an apprentice plumber and he didn't look anything like that blonde guy and he lived two blocks away in a flat somewhat resembling the one she pointed out, but she had good personal reasons for all those lies, Caro could fairly walk away.

Yes, I think she would walk too. Caro has also promised to show Keli up as well if she does tell lies to Caro or Caro finds something that shows that she did do this.

There is a lot at stake for Keli right now if she is not telling the truth to the ABC.

 

[sosocurious]

When did Duncan find out about child one and three? When did he learn he was not the father of either? Before Keli was interviewed by Keogh or after?

 

[JLZ]

When did Duncan find out about child one and three? When did he learn he was not the father of either? Before Keli was interviewed by Keogh or after?

He appeared surprised at the inquest when told he'd been named as the father of "all three". You would think he must have known from the dates that he wasn't the father of the third. Unless he had relations with Keli after their "break-up" in early 1998, which . . . I could believe, and he might not want to acknowledge that because of his wife. The inquest was several years after the interview.

 

[The Observer]

When did Duncan find out about child one and three? When did he learn he was not the father of either? Before Keli was interviewed by Keogh or after?

Nice Girl excerpt.

Detective Kehoe tracks down Duncan, who by this time has moved back to the UK with Karen, and has him interviewed by police over there on 8 February 2000. Still reeling from the knowledge that Keli had given birth to a baby the year before, Duncan is now told that Keli had another child named Tegan in 1996 and that police are having trouble finding her. Duncan appears to be unable to get his head around it. How can Keli have had a baby in 1996? They were dating then so he would have known about it, he tells the officer who interviews him...