Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #54

[stormbird]

I'm posting this, not as an invitation to discuss, just as something I thought was interesting (from an article reporting on Gary Jubelin's sentencing yesterday):

"[FFC] became tearful when describing her family's bond with the former detective chief inspector, saying he took the time to form a connection with them.
'He knew William,' the woman told the court.
'He never met him, but he knows him. Through us, through his sister. When you're a victim of a crime like this, you need people to know you.'

After testifying and during [a break] in proceedings, she approached Jubelin and said 'I don't care about coronavirus' before embracing him." [BBM]

- Steve Zemek/AAP, "Ex-cop Jubelin fined for illegal recording," Canberra Times, 08 April 2020

 

[SLouTh]

I'm posting this, not as an invitation to discuss, just as something I thought was interesting (from an article reporting on Gary Jubelin's sentencing yesterday):

"[FFC] became tearful when describing her family's bond with the former detective chief inspector, saying he took the time to form a connection with them.
'He knew William,' the woman told the court.
'He never met him, but he knows him. Through us, through his sister. When you're a victim of a crime like this, you need people to know you.'

After testifying and during [a break] in proceedings, she approached Jubelin and said 'I don't care about coronavirus' before embracing him." [BBM]

- Steve Zemek/AAP, "Ex-cop Jubelin fined for illegal recording," Canberra Times, 08 April 2020

Thanks for that article link Stormy...... a good read...

I also noted this section in the same article....

Jubelin was facing a maximum penalty of five years in jail, but prosecutor Phil Hogan did not push for a term of imprisonment - instead insisting on a monetary penalty.

But he said Jubelin should be convicted, given he was dishonest in his testimony and lacked remorse.

"These offences are just too serious," Mr Hogan said.

"They have to include some punishment and denunciation, not of the offender, the person, but of the offending. It's offending that infringed on fundamental civil rights."
Ex-cop Jubelin fined for illegal recording

I thought it was decent of Hogan to point out it wasn't directed at Jubelin as a person, but just the actual offence....

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I've been a police officer for 34 years, I haven't seen other people treated the same way I had been treated.

'I wasn't even allowed to go back into my office to get my personal belongings.'

Why? What was it about this case? Don't tell me that recording on mobile phones does not happen all the time (and not just in the police force either).

Normally illegally or improperly obtained evidence only emerges when someone has been charged and is in trial. If defence become aware of an issue with evidence, they apply to have it excluded before trial in what is called a "voir dire" which is like a mini trial before a trial. If it emerges that police have acted illegally, depending on the severity, there may be disciplinary proceedings.

The difference with this case is that the question of illegality arose during the investigation, well before anyone was charged. I think that Jubelin was immediately sidelined was to protect the investigation going forward. Once there is even an allegation of impropriety, everything is tainted. By removing Jubelin immediately, the investigation team have a chance of salvaging all evidence uncovered after Jubelin was removed. If they had let him stay on for another month or even a day, any evidence discovered during that time is under threat.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

Normally illegally or improperly obtained evidence only emerges when someone has been charged and is in trial. If defence become aware of an issue with evidence, they apply to have it excluded before trial in what is called a "voir dire" which is like a mini trial before a trial. If it emerges that police have acted illegally, depending on the severity, there may be disciplinary proceedings.

The difference with this case is that the question of illegality arose during the investigation, well before anyone was charged. I think that Jubelin was immediately sidelined was to protect the investigation going forward. Once there is even an allegation of impropriety, everything is tainted. By removing Jubelin immediately, the investigation team have a chance of salvaging all evidence uncovered after Jubelin was removed. If they had let him stay on for another month or even a day, any evidence discovered during that time is under threat.

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

 

[interested64]

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

Correct,but will never be admitted

 

[stormbird]

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

Tinker Taylor,
What's your source for any of that? Did you read it somewhere? Did someone with any authority tell you? Are you making it up?

 

[peekinandy]

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

Tinker- I like where you are coming from but who knows whether it was to protect the investigation - or to get him off his his job - either way, it does indeed help to protect the investigation going forward, and that is what matters - for William and his families . I know Jube's is an angel for victims's of crime, but he still broke the law.

Also - William's case hasn't been sent to unsolved murders yet! As you say, BBM above "They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader" is true...but now, maybe team Rosann are onto something for William?

 

[Tinker Taylor]

Tinker Taylor,
What's your source for any of that? Did you read it somewhere? Did someone with any authority tell you? Are you making it up?

Well, if you actually read what I wrote you will see it was all my own opinion. BBM below

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

 

[stormbird]

Well, if you actually read what I wrote you will see it was all my own opinion. BBM below

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

Tinker Taylor,

Thank you. When you have no source for your information and could be pulling things out of thin air - by speculating, by guessing, by consulting tea leaves - it's better that the rest of us are told that so we can weigh up what you're saying.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, if you actually read what I wrote you will see it was all my own opinion. BBM below

From what I understand, the difference here is that one of his colleagues "reported" him. This forced his superiors to sideline him and have him charged. It appears that this was not so much to protect the investigation, but simply to remove him from the investigation, presumably so it could be sent to unsolved murders. I guess when an investigation appears to be going nowhere and is simply using up the resources of the team, there is pressure to "move on". When you get someone as tenacious as GJ, it would be difficult to get him to give up on the investigation. They are expected to produce results and a lack of results reflects on the team leader.

It is my opinion, too.
An opinion I have formed from all of the nuances I have read and heard in articles and podcasts.

It is not as if NSWPOL are going to publicly own up to what happened, so I don't know how you (or anyone) is supposed to back up their opinion.

I considered gathering the many, many bits and pieces required to back up that opinion. Then I thought 'no, most members have been here a long time, they have heard/read what FM was told by Scott Cook, they have heard/read about the internal politics (or they should have)'.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...the-only-victim-of-crime-20200213-p540kw.html

 

[Tinker Taylor]

Tinker Taylor,

Thank you. When you have no source for your information and could be pulling things out of thin air - by speculating, by guessing, by consulting tea leaves - it's better that the rest of us are told that so we can weigh up what you're saying.

I'm not sure what you believe others do on this forum? Does everyone else aside from me have inside information? Do you?

When I have a source for information I state as fact (not opinion - characterised by by saying "I think", "presumably", "perhaps" "I guess" and similar words), I will include a link.

In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would simply scroll by and refrain from belittling or mocking my opinions.

 

[HayLouise]

We’ll be recording a bonus episode of the Where’s William Tyrrell? podcast, discussing all the aspects of Jubelin’s conviction. We expect to release it sometime next week. #WheresWilliam @10_Speaks @NatarshaBelling

Lia Harris on Twitter

 

[SouthAussie]

This Sunday ......

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=247182406435862

 

[they'll get you]

I've been a police officer for 34 years, I haven't seen other people treated the same way I had been treated.

'I wasn't even allowed to go back into my office to get my personal belongings.'

Why? What was it about this case? Don't tell me that recording on mobile phones does not happen all the time (and not just in the police force either).

It stinks to high heaven Wex.

 

[bearbear]

'It hurts me, it humiliates me': Gary Jubelin's 'unbelievable' criminal conviction for illegal recording has shattered the hero cop


://9now.nine.com.au/60-minutes/gary-jubelin-humiliated-hurt-like-a-scar-on-his-reputation-exclusive-interview/2a545094-8c2e-424f-8b52-3d0fd1357057

 

[SouthAussie]

"The false affidavits proved to be a false allegation ..... "

'They are lying': Former head of William Tyrrell investigation says case is in jeopardy, claiming police blocked a formal handover

 

[they'll get you]

IMO all cops, detectives, firies and ambos should have body cams for their own security against the lying, spitting, violent fools out there.
What’s the difference between a civilian recording an incident. Isn’t a confession just as important?
IMO, yes it is!

‘You can lockup from a thief but you can’t a liar’.

 

[Chrissy74]

IMO all cops, detectives, firies and ambos should have body cams for their own security against the lying, spitting, violent fools out there.
What’s the difference between a civilian recording an incident. Isn’t a confession just as important?
IMO, yes it is!

‘You can lockup from a thief but you can’t a liar’.

I completely agree with you. However these recordings were deemed illegal due the fact that GJ made other officers aware he had recorded these conversations on his phone without a warrant and had asked a colleague to prepare a transcript of some of the conversations, but to say they originated from the surveillance devices covered by the warrant.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

I completely agree with you. However these recordings were deemed illegal due the fact that GJ made other officers aware he had recorded these conversations on his phone without a warrant and had asked a colleague to prepare a transcript of some of the conversations, but to say they originated from the surveillance devices covered by the warrant.

BBM "but to say they originated from the surveillance devices covered by the warrant" Can you please tell me where you read this?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I completely agree with you. However these recordings were deemed illegal due the fact that GJ made other officers aware he had recorded these conversations on his phone without a warrant and had asked a colleague to prepare a transcript of some of the conversations, but to say they originated from the surveillance devices covered by the warrant.

where did you read this?

@SouthAussie posted just above your own post-

"The false affidavits proved to be a false allegation ..... "

'They are lying': Former head of William Tyrrell investigation says case is in jeopardy, claiming police blocked a formal handover