Stephen Miller's confession not only defied logic, but graphically illustrates the dangers of over-reliance on them. He confessed to a crime that he definitely did not commit, because his vulnerabilities were exploited by police officers and then misunderstood at best by professionals who ought to have known better throughout the criminal justice system. Detective Constables Peter Greenwood and John Seaford bullied and hectored Miller, and the breach was widened by Simon Evans, John Murray and Graham Toogood. They used oppressive interviewing and deception to cajole incriminating admissions from him that became the crux of the whole case.

During Mark Grommek's recent trial for perjury at the committal hearing and two trials in this case, it emerged that many of the officers who helped to obtain the crucial account from him had been the same ones that overbore Miller's will as well. Grommek was an homosexual who lived on the fringes of the law at the time and was therefore vulnerable to pressure from the police. He had told them that he had seen and heard nothing important on the night of the murder of Lynette White several times. The same methods that were used on Miller were used on Grommek too – a fact that Nicholas Dean QC who prosecuted him accepted.

It suggests that during the original investigation there was a deliberate tactic to target vulnerable putative witnesses to secure evidence to charge the selected suspects and then try the same methods to obtain confessions from the Cardiff Five as well. Miller was the most vulnerable of the 'suspects' and consequently most susceptible to making a false confession. He desperately needed the best legal representation possible, but sadly the solicitor hired to represent him in Cardiff was not up to the task. They tried the same methods on Yusef Abdullahi too, but unlike Miller he was not so vulnerable and was unshakeable in asserting his innocence – partly because he remembered that he had a solid alibi. He was working on the MV Coral Sea throughout the night of the murder and nothing would make him say that he wasn't. Miller, on the other hand, had a poor memory – he had forgotten what amounted to conclusive proof of his innocence. This proved vital in extracting false admissions from him, but while Miller's memory was poor and he was denied access to statements that could have refreshed his memory, others – police, his lawyers, the CPS and their lawyers – had access to them, but failed to grasp their importance.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (December 27th 2008)