Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sep 2014 - #70

Status
Not open for further replies.

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,728
Reaction score
138,553
To change the subject after a little browsing in that document: after Cowan's arrest, the inquest resumed for a few days, then after those hearings:

The inquest findings could not be finalised immediately after receipt of
submissions. In December 2016, the Crime and Corruption Commission
(CCC) received multiple allegations relevant to possible police
misconduct, corrupt conduct and criminal conduct, including perjury
relating to the QPS investigation into Daniel’s disappearance and
subsequent evidence given at the inquest.
(paragraph 39)

That started me thinking about whether the questioning of the foster carers by the crime commission and the lie that is alleged had to do with their relations with Jubelin, or rather his with them. Perhaps authorities have been aiming to charge him with further misconduct.

I read yesterday that Bruce Morcombe presented the Coroner with 5 points that he wanted looked into further. After the arrest of Cowan. Which is why that inquest went on for 3 more days, after the arrest.
(Not finding that article again at the moment. But here is a somewhat similar one ... Missing Daniel Morcombe should not have been treated as runaway: coroner)

I think if the NSW Crime Commission was looking into the handling of William's investigation, it might be a bit premature.
No arrests yet
No exact determination of who the perp is (if there is one)
Three different lead investigators in charge over the 7+ years
Two of those lead investigators having already investigated the FP, before Laidlaw took over.

I would be wondering why they were investigating the investigation before they knew what the heck happened to William.
.
 
Last edited:

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
21,399
I read yesterday that Bruce Morcombe presented the Coroner with 5 points that he wanted looked into further. After the arrest of Cowan. Which is why that inquest went on for 3 more days, after the arrest.
(Not finding that article again at the moment. But here is a somewhat similar one ... Missing Daniel Morcombe should not have been treated as runaway: coroner)

I think if the NSW Crime Commission was looking into the handling of William's investigation, it might be a bit premature.
No arrests yet
No exact determination of who the perp is (if there is one)
Three different lead investigators in charge over the 7+ years
Two of those lead investigators having already investigated the FP, before Laidlaw took over.

I would be wondering why they were investigating the investigation before they knew what the heck happened to William.
.
Well, there might be a question about whether Jubelin inappropriately shared details of the investigation with the foster parents who simply because of their situation were potential POIs. The inappropriateness wouldn't depend on whether Jubelin's trust in their innocence is justified. I don't see why that couldn't be investigated before the conclusion of the inquest. What I'm suggesting as a hypothesis is that the crime commission believes Jubelin told them certain things and the foster parents deny it; therefore it's alleged that the foster parents are lying.
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
I read yesterday that Bruce Morcombe presented the Coroner with 5 points that he wanted looked into further. After the arrest of Cowan. Which is why that inquest went on for 3 more days, after the arrest.
(Not finding that article again at the moment. But here is a somewhat similar one ... Missing Daniel Morcombe should not have been treated as runaway: coroner)

I think if the NSW Crime Commission was looking into the handling of William's investigation, it might be a bit premature.
No arrests yet
No exact determination of who the perp is (if there is one)
Three different lead investigators in charge over the 7+ years
Two of those lead investigators having already investigated the FP, before Laidlaw took over.

I would be wondering why they were investigating the investigation before they knew what the heck happened to William.
.
One of the Roles of the NSWCC Functions and Objectives is:

To assemble evidence that would be admissible in the prosecution of a person for a relevant offence arising out of any such matters and to furnish it to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)


Perhaps they are going thru the evidence, to ensure they have enough evidence to put to the DPP before they charge someone??
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,728
Reaction score
138,553
Well, there might be a question about whether Jubelin inappropriately shared details of the investigation with the foster parents who simply because of their situation were potential POIs. The inappropriateness wouldn't depend on whether Jubelin's trust in their innocence is justified. I don't see why that couldn't be investigated before the conclusion of the inquest. What I'm suggesting as a hypothesis is that the crime commission believes Jubelin told them certain things and the foster parents deny it; therefore it's alleged that the foster parents are lying.

So, a premature witch hunt, essentially. If that's what has happened with the Crime Commission.

If others have read Bowraville, and/or followed the Matthew Leveson case, and/or read Jubes book, they will know that Jubes forms an empathetic relationship with the victims families. He learns a lot about the victims in doing that, and I don't think that means he is blind to any possible culpability of a family member.

Could Jubes have involved the FP in a police strategy of some kind? Perhaps. imo
Remember when we wondered if those two cars were actually there, or if it was a fabricated idea used as police strategy?
.
 
Last edited:

JLZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
21,399
So, a premature witch hunt, essentially. If that's what has happened with the Crime Commission.

If others have read Bowraville, and/or followed the Matthew Leveson case, and/or read Jubes book, they will know that Jubes forms an empathetic relationship with the victims families. He learns a lot about the victims in doing that, and I don't think that means he is blind to any possible culpability of a family member.

Could Jubes have involved the FP in a police strategy of some kind? Perhaps. imo
Remember when we wondered if those two cars were actually there, or if it was a fabricated idea used as police strategy?
.
I'm not attacking Jubelin this time and my guess is that no lie will be proved home to the foster parents. I've a different opinion about the stalking etc. But it's all ignorance; anyone else's ignorance is as good as mine.
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
Legally speaking, I think the NSWCC is going through the evidence looking for "holes" or parts of evidence that can be dismissed by a good Defence Barrister ......

Because GJ was found guilty of recording illegally, I think a good barrister will argue that any evidence obtained by GJ in this case should be thrown out/dismissed as it could be considered, as what they refer to, as "tainted evidence" and "fruit of the "poisonous tree".

Not my personal opinion, but it is how the law / courts work ....

SFR and the DPP need to build a case without using any evidence obtained by GJ, to have a chance of winning.

That is why GJ's Trial was so important to this case..... It was the future legal ramifications that the verdict could have.... no matter what the public thought of the actual charges, and what happened for them to occur .....

If this case ever gets to trial for William it is going to be very difficult for the DPP to win, as there have been Police errors along the way .....
 
Last edited:

LolaAngelina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
982
Reaction score
923
Well, there might be a question about whether Jubelin inappropriately shared details of the investigation with the foster parents who simply because of their situation were potential POIs. The inappropriateness wouldn't depend on whether Jubelin's trust in their innocence is justified. I don't see why that couldn't be investigated before the conclusion of the inquest. What I'm suggesting as a hypothesis is that the crime commission believes Jubelin told them certain things and the foster parents deny it; therefore it's alleged that the foster parents are lying.
IMO there is no way they are wasting anytime on a former detective. It achieves nothing in regards to the investigation and he has just given evidence at BS’s trial on his own behalf but representing the NSW police as well.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,728
Reaction score
138,553
Legally speaking, I think the NSWCC is going through the evidence looking for "holes" or parts of evidence that can be dismissed by a good Defence Barrister ......

Because GJ was found guilty of recording illegally, I think a good barrister will argue that any evidence obtained by GJ in this case should be thrown out/dismissed as it could be considered, as what they refer to, as "tainted evidence".

Not my personal opinion, but it is how the law / courts work ....

SFR and the DPP need to build a case without using any evidence obtained by GJ, to have a chance of winning.

That is why GJ's Trial was so important to this case..... It was the future legal ramifications that the verdict could have.... no matter what the public thought of the actual charges, and what happened for them to occur .....

If this case ever gets to trial for William it is going to be very difficult for the DPP to win, as there have been Police errors along the way .....

BBM I wonder if that would hold up, though. If it was attempted. Due to the involvement of hundreds of other officers investigating and logging their results (eg: Laura Beacroft).

I think it might only hold up if there was a prosecution against PS. imo
 

LolaAngelina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
982
Reaction score
923
BBM I wonder if that would hold up, though. If it was attempted. Due to the involvement of hundreds of other officers involved in the investigation.

I think it might only hold up if there was a prosecution against PS. imo
I agree. They won’t throw out all evidence he and his team obtained because of 1 illegal recording. It does mean they are going to look a lot closer at how this evidence was obtained but as long as it was legally it still stands
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
BBM I wonder if that would hold up, though. If it was attempted. Due to the involvement of hundreds of other officers investigating and logging their results (eg: Laura Beacroft).

I think it might only hold up if there was a prosecution against PS. imo
I don't think it pertains to evidence collected by other officers, like Laura B ......

If there was a prosecution case against PS ...... With a good barrister, PS would most likely win the case as they wouldn't be able to use the GJ recordings ..... His Defence would argue that they were "tainted" and have them dismissed from the case ....

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is currently how the Law stands....
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
Tainted Evidence works with The Fruit of a Poisonous Tree
There in lies the problem for the DPP

Very basic definitions below :

tainted evidence
n. in a criminal trial, information which has been obtained by illegal means or has been traced through evidence acquired by illegal search and/or seizure. This evidence is called "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is not admissible in court.
See also: fruit of the poisonous tree probable cause search and seizure search warrant


fruit of the poisonous tree
n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession) may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. For example, as part of a coerced admission made without giving a prime suspect the so-called "Miranda warnings" (statement of rights, including the right to remain silent and what he/she says will be used against them), the suspect tells the police the location of stolen property. Since the admission cannot be introduced as evidence in trial, neither can the stolen property.

 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,728
Reaction score
138,553
I don't think it pertains to evidence collected by other officers, like Laura B ......

If there was a prosecution case against PS ...... With a good barrister, PS would most likely win the case as they wouldn't be able to use the GJ recordings ..... His Defence would argue that they were "tainted" and have them dismissed from the case ....

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is currently how the Law stands....

Yes, am aware of the fruit of the tainted tree.

I think we agree that we both think it could apply to PS (imo - if anyone, considering the involvement of other officers).

Which begs the question, how does that impact on the FP and the Crime Commission? Surely the Crime Commission wouldn't be searching for ways to exempt the FP from prosecution, using fruit of the tainted tree.
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
Which begs the question, how does that impact on the FP and the Crime Commission? Surely the Crime Commission wouldn't be searching for ways to exempt the FP from prosecution, using fruit of the tainted tree.
No absolutely not ...... We might be on a different wavelength here I think?? That was getting off track in relation to PS.

But in putting any evidence together for the DPP I am sure that NSWCC would want all of that evidence to be admissible in court ....

SFR may have just referred William's Case to the NSWCC for assistance from Michael Barnes, given his success with cracking Cold Cases working along Homicide and Coroners....... We don't yet really know the grounds for referral to the NSWCC. We are surmising, and have theories, on why this may have occurred ....


HE'S known as "Cold Case Barnes'', the man who has helped crack some of Queensland's most baffling homicides.

 
Last edited:

Detective Willy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2017
Messages
516
Reaction score
4,886
So, a premature witch hunt, essentially. If that's what has happened with the Crime Commission.

If others have read Bowraville, and/or followed the Matthew Leveson case, and/or read Jubes book, they will know that Jubes forms an empathetic relationship with the victims families. He learns a lot about the victims in doing that, and I don't think that means he is blind to any possible culpability of a family member.

Could Jubes have involved the FP in a police strategy of some kind? Perhaps. imo
Remember when we wondered if those two cars were actually there, or if it was a fabricated idea used as police strategy?
.
The difference in the Bowraville and Matthew Leveson cases is that it was OK for Gary Jubelin to form an empathetic relationship with the victims families as Police knew who the perpetrator was in these cases. It clearly was not the victims family members.

Forming a friendship with the FP's in this William Tyrrell case and involving them in Police Strategy? Diabolical IMO if he did as we still do not know if they are involved.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,728
Reaction score
138,553
The difference in the Bowraville and Matthew Leveson cases is that it was OK for Gary Jubelin to form an empathetic relationship with the victims families as Police knew who the perpetrator was in these cases. It clearly was not the victims family members.

Forming a friendship with the FP's in this William Tyrrell case and involving them in Police Strategy? Diabolical IMO if he did as we still do not know if they are involved.

Well, they (Jubes and Hans Rupp) thought they did know if the FP were involved. They both ruled them out, in separate investigations.

It is not as if the FP have never been investigated before.

And it is not as if any evidence against them has yet been produced.
 

FromGermany1

Formerly FromGermany
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
11,389
If the alleged assault happened due to accusations about William, then it would be a related matter. And they would know that right now. So, of course it would need to be included in the brief.

But if the alleged assault was not about William, I am not sure that it would have to (or be allowed to) be included in the brief. That is what my question is.
I can't wait to learn, whether the cases against the FP are indeed u-n-r-e-l-a-t-e-d (to William's fate) as always emphasized in the media.
 

T-dawg420

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
311
Reaction score
1,845
No offence to former Detecteve Jubelin, why can’t his methods be questioned? Just because he has performed excellent work in the past should that automatically make him immune to any kinds of questioning? he is human, he is not infallible

Again, no disrespect to the man, but Jubelin thought BS was very guilty, and that turned out to be wrong, so all due respect if he was wrong in his feelings and thought process about BS, why is he automatically correct about the FP’s?

He wouldn’t be the first police officer to make a error in judgement in a case. I’m definitely not trying to bag anyone, esp the police cos they have an extremely difficult job.

Why can’t his methods be checked and questioned?
 

JBowie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
972
Reaction score
7,278
Why can’t his methods be checked and questioned?

As long as they are pertinent to the case, no reason at all IMO.

Thanks to his personal style and behavior over the years, GJ could probably count on one finger the number of friends that he has left in NSW Police, so my guess is that if NSW Police management believes that he has screwed up in other ways then I reckon we'll be hearing about it.
 

LolaAngelina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
982
Reaction score
923
No offence to former Detecteve Jubelin, why can’t his methods be questioned? Just because he has performed excellent work in the past should that automatically make him immune to any kinds of questioning? he is human, he is not infallible

Again, no disrespect to the man, but Jubelin thought BS was very guilty, and that turned out to be wrong, so all due respect if he was wrong in his feelings and thought process about BS, why is he automatically correct about the FP’s?

He wouldn’t be the first police officer to make a error in judgement in a case. I’m definitely not trying to bag anyone, esp the police cos they have an extremely difficult job.

Why can’t his methods be checked and questioned?
He never publicly discussed BS so we actually don’t know he thought he was guilty. All we do know is he felt he needed to be investigated. Jubelins methods have been questioned extensively when he went to court. I’m sure if there was more than that recording done incorrectly he would have been charged. No-one has been convicted in Williams case so we can’t say he made an error in judgement at all.
 

SLouTh

In a world where you can be anything, be kind!
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
19,725
And it is not as if any evidence against them has yet been produced.
After nearly 8 years there doesn't appear to be much hard evidence of anything ....that we have been told about anyway .... Admittedly. there are a few circumstantial snippets about some persons mentioned over the years....

And there is still no actual crime scene, that we know of, for physical evidence either.....

Of course the NSW Police would know far more than we are privy to.....and hopefully they have something in that brief...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top