Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #41

[papertrail]

The FF carers were reported to be devastated . Hopefully they will continue to keep contact with GJ. Maybe he can now give them a little more info about the case ?

And divulge information about the investigation. Really? I personally believe he will not be permitted to contact them as part of his removal from the case and his permanent departure fro
m NSW police and the ongoing Inquest.

 

[papertrail]

I think another thing to be taken into consideration is that Jubes was not put on administrative leave while the internal investigation was carried out. That, to me, shows the lack of gravity of the allegations.
(What kind of leave did Lambert take? That has not been revealed.)

If this had been a serious infraction of some kind, the force does not keep an officer on active duty. They step them down onto administrative leave while they investigate.
It is possible that the allegations are malicious, and the police know that, but they have to internally investigate anyway to show that they have done the right thing.

Jubes is a far too important and effective officer for the force to lose him ... but now they will lose him, of his own accord.

Allegations of bullying, recording without warrant and falsifying affidavits...as in plural as the media article had the word affidavits and physical altercation with a person under his command...are on the high end of extremely serious.

The timing of his removal from the Rosann Taskforce is also a critical pointer just how serious the allegations are considered by the leadership of NSW Police . The allegations affected the credibility of his leadership ultimately the credibility of the Rosann Taskforce.

The allegations also raise thoughts for me as to what processes more junior officers were permitted to do that were not within strict legal guidelines.

He was obviously removed to remove his influence and direct involvement with the Coronial process for a reason.

I also consider if these allegations had not been raised and actions taken as they have been what would have been the affect on a future prosecution or successful prosecution.

Just imagine if a perpetrator was able to walk free and justice for William never prevailed.

It is all about dear sweet William and what happened to him. Nothing else matters to me. No person matters. No person's disappointment matters.

No person in my mind is cleared until a successful prosecution is obtained with no chance of the prosecution being quashed.

 

[SouthAussie]

Allegations of bullying, recording without warrant and falsifying affidavits...as in plural as the media article had the word affidavits and physical altercation with a person under his command...are on the high end of extremely serious.

Then why was he not put on administrative leave?
Why did the force keep him close so they could still access him for case information and anything else required of his skills and knowledge?

- Have people thought about the difficulty in 'falsifying affidavits'? They require an appropriate notary witness.
- Or that affidavits are used as sworn evidence in court, not as investigation statements?
- Or that a police officer is not required to furnish affidavits of their own for court, that their sworn testimony is sufficient?
- Have people thought about the fact that a police officer over the level of sergeant can sign as witness to an affidavit, and as such are signing that the content of the affidavit is true and correct ... whether they can be sure of that or not?
- Who, including public notaries/court registrars/lawyers/justices of the peace, can ever be absolutely sure that an affidavit they are witnessing is completely true and correct?
- Can reference to affidavits, in existence or not, be part of operation conversations with suspects? In other words, can an officer pretend they have affidavits to encourage a suspect to speak the truth? Many an untruth has been spoken during police operations everywhere, in order to get to the truth and/or apprehend a perp.

I am happy to now agree to disagree with you on this topic.

 

[kiwi50]

And divulge information about the investigation. Really? I personally believe he will not be permitted to contact them as part of his removal from the case and his permanent departure fro
m NSW police and the ongoing Inquest.

How can anyone stop Jubelin from visiting or talking to the FPs.? Im sure they have become close friends now.

 

[JLZ]

Then why was he not put on administrative leave?
Why did the force keep him close so they could still access him for case information and anything else required of his skills and knowledge?

- Have people thought about the difficulty in 'falsifying affidavits'? They require an appropriate notary witness.
- Or that affidavits are used as sworn evidence in court, not as investigation statements?
- Or that a police officer is not required to furnish affidavits of their own for court, that their sworn testimony is sufficient?
- Have people thought about the fact that a police officer over the level of sergeant can sign as witness to an affidavit, and as such are signing that the content of the affidavit is true and correct ... whether they can be sure of that or not?
- Who, including public notaries/court registrars/lawyers/justices of the peace, can ever be absolutely sure that an affidavit they are witnessing is completely true and correct?
- Can reference to affidavits, in existence or not, be part of operation conversations with suspects? In other words, can an officer pretend they have affidavits to encourage a suspect to speak the truth? Many an untruth has been spoken during police operations everywhere, in order to get to the truth and/or apprehend a perp.

I am happy to now agree to disagree with you on this topic.

I am not sure about your third point . . . that the witness to an affidavit is affirming its content. I think that the witness is affirming that the affidavit was properly signed in his or her presence by the person making the affidavit.

 

[Thebottomline]

How can anyone stop Jubelin from visiting or talking to the FPs.? Im sure they have become close friends now.

No one can and I hope he tells them everything he can !

 

[SouthAussie]

I am not sure about your third point . . . that the witness to an affidavit is affirming its content. I think that the witness is affirming that the affidavit was properly signed in his or her presence by the person making the affidavit.

A crucial part of the process of giving evidence in affidavit form is to ensure that it is properly witnessed. In other words, it is vital that an authorised witness can affirm that the contents of an affidavit are ‘true and correct in every particular’.
What is an Affidavit? | Meaning of Affidavit in Law | LegalVision

Authorised witnesses are typically:
court registrars;
lawyers;
justices of the peace;
police officers above the rank of sergeant; and
public notaries.
(from same link)

However, having done an affidavit myself some years ago, I know that the notary public simply asked if the info contained was true and correct. I said yes, and then they signed and stamped it.

 

[papertrail]

Then why was he not put on administrative leave?
Why did the force keep him close so they could still access him for case information and anything else required of his skills and knowledge?

- Have people thought about the difficulty in 'falsifying affidavits'? They require an appropriate notary witness.
- Or that affidavits are used as sworn evidence in court, not as investigation statements?
- Or that a police officer is not required to furnish affidavits of their own for court, that their sworn testimony is sufficient?
- Have people thought about the fact that a police officer over the level of sergeant can sign as witness to an affidavit, and as such are signing that the content of the affidavit is true and correct ... whether they can be sure of that or not?
- Who, including public notaries/court registrars/lawyers/justices of the peace, can ever be absolutely sure that an affidavit they are witnessing is completely true and correct?
- Can reference to affidavits, in existence or not, be part of operation conversations with suspects? In other words, can an officer pretend they have affidavits to encourage a suspect to speak the truth? Many an untruth has been spoken during police operations everywhere, in order to get to the truth and/or apprehend a perp.

I am happy to now agree to disagree with you on this topic.

When a person witnesses an affidavit they are signing that they witnessed the person swearing the affidavit not that the contents are factual. The maker of the affidavit signs that their version is true and correct.

We do not know what Jubelin's responsibilities entailed when he was transferred out / removed from Rosann Taskforce. He could have been a penpusher or paper shuffler.

Rules , regulations and laws are put into place to protect the justice system. Those that twist and bend and manipulate in order to achieve the desired outcome they believe is correct should always be held accountable and wear the consequences.

Respectfully I am at ease to agree to disagree with your point of view. We all come here with totally different perspective and life experiences.

Edit to add. This link may explain the administrative leave. Administrative leave - Wikipedia

 

[sleepinoz]

A crucial part of the process of giving evidence in affidavit form is to ensure that it is properly witnessed. In other words, it is vital that an authorised witness can affirm that the contents of an affidavit are ‘true and correct in every particular’.
What is an Affidavit? | Meaning of Affidavit in Law | LegalVision

Authorised witnesses are typically:
court registrars;
lawyers;
justices of the peace;
police officers above the rank of sergeant; and
public notaries.
(from same link)

Even though this information is from a legal source I can't say I agree with your interpretation.

How would a Police office witnessing an affidavit know that every aspect is true and correct. I imagine in their profession they sign many affidavits made by witnesses, crims etc, they can't possible know that everything they say is true. People lie.

I think the 'true and correct' applies to it being a true and correct statement of what has been said by the person making the affidavit.

Witnessing an affidavit is not falsifying, the person making the affidavit is the one falsifying.

 

[SouthAussie]

Even though this information is from a legal source I can't say I agree with your interpretation.

How would a Police office witnessing an affidavit know that every aspect is true and correct. I imagine in their profession they sign many affidavits made by witnesses, crims etc, they can't possible know that everything they say is true. People lie.

I think the 'true and correct' applies to it being a true and correct statement of what has been said by the person making the affidavit.

Witnessing an affidavit is not falsifying, the person making the affidavit is the one falsifying.

I truly think that what has happened may be the last point I made in my post. About officers not telling truths to suspects, in order to get to the truth of the crime.
Not the first or last time that has happened by many a police officer.

 

[papertrail]

I truly think that what has happened may be the last point I made in my post. About officers not telling truths to suspects, in order to get to the truth of the crime.
Not the first or last time that has happened by many a police officer.

Someone swearing an affidavit is stating what they know.

For a police officer as senior as Jubelin to have allegations raised about falsifying affidavits means he may be the one personally swearing an affidavit that contains information that he knew not to be true at the time he signed such.

 

[papertrail]

No one can and I hope he tells them everything he can !

His contractual obligations certainly would stop him. He would certainly be foolish imo to keep contact and I cannot think of words to describe adequately how much proverbial sh#te he would be in if he shared anything from an investigation with a member of the public before or after his retirement. Sure he once kept in close contact with the foster family but it would be beyond words if he shared detail of anything about Rosann's discoveries.

 

[JLZ]

A crucial part of the process of giving evidence in affidavit form is to ensure that it is properly witnessed. In other words, it is vital that an authorised witness can affirm that the contents of an affidavit are ‘true and correct in every particular’.
What is an Affidavit? | Meaning of Affidavit in Law | LegalVision

Authorised witnesses are typically:
court registrars;
lawyers;
justices of the peace;
police officers above the rank of sergeant; and
public notaries.
(from same link)

However, having done an affidavit myself some years ago, I know that the notary public simply asked if the info contained was true and correct. I said yes, and then they signed and stamped it.

I suspect the website is wrong, but what can I say? They have the qualifications; I don't. I don't see anything in the Oaths Act that indicates that the authorized witness is in the position of a second witness to the facts.

 

[papertrail]

How can anyone stop Jubelin from visiting or talking to the FPs.? Im sure they have become close friends now.

Close friends? He was head of the Rosann Taskforce. That would not put him into the friendship realm by any means. That is way beyond professional and maintaining an unemotional arms length connection imo.

 

[SouthAussie]

I suspect the website is wrong, but what can I say? They have the qualifications; I don't. I don't see anything in the Oaths Act that indicates that the authorized witness is in the position of a second witness to the facts.

I don't disagree with you. I believe that most/all notaries just ask if what a person has stated is true and correct.

I just wanted people to think about the actual situation, what truly could have happened here, while they were opining.
Jubes knows that falsifying affidavits amounts to perjury. He is a well experienced officer.
He also knows that no officer is above the law.

Personally, I suspect that the 'falsification' is related to the recorded conversation, something that Jubes has said in that content. Perhaps stating that they had affidavits that are not in existence. Which is why he feels that he is not at fault.
As I said before, many an officer has done similar things. But perhaps not as much is at stake in some other cases, if a perp is to be brought to justice.

I can just imagine the frustration SFR feels after 4 years of investigation. Perhaps 'knowing' who has done this crime, not knowing where William is, banging their heads against the wall trying to snare the perp through usual means, not wanting the perp to get away with this crime ....

 

[papertrail]

Falsifying an affidavit can lead too a charge of perjury!
Queensland Legal Aid | Helping Queenslanders with their legal problems

I am sure the Police Officer presenting a brief of evidence swears an affidavit that the brief document contains accurate information and that it is attached to the brief as the leader.

 

[JLZ]

Someone swearing an affidavit is stating what they know.

For a police officer as senior as Jubelin to have allegations raised about falsifying affidavits means he may be the one personally swearing an affidavit that contains information that he knew not to be true at the time he signed such.

I wonder whether a fudged witnessing might also be described as falsifying an affidavit. For example, someone presents to a police officer an affidavit signed by his/her partner, and for one reason or another the police officer signs to witness the statement even though he didn't witness the signing. Another possibility, the deponent has a poor knowledge of English, deponent and police cobble together a written statement which represents the person's evidence but the person doesn't really understand the written statement and so the police are at fault in acting as witnesses to the affidavit.

 

[SouthAussie]

I am sure the Police Officer presenting a brief of evidence swears an affidavit that the brief document contains accurate information and that it is attached to the brief as the leader.

Yes, I believe that you are correct about that.
Stated as being 'to the best of my knowledge', but the person making the affidavits is taking responsibility for everything contained in the police brief - whether it is their own or other officers' evidence.
There may have been more than one covering affidavit produced, if the police brief came in multiple binders/folders/containers - which I imagine it would, being 4 years of accumulated evidence.

From the large police doco about submitting evidence ......

"This statement made by me accurately sets out the evidence which I would be prepared, if necessary, to give in court as a witness. The statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true."
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/8546/evidproc.pdf

 

[Ms Cadfael]

I'm thinking it may have to do with affidavits GJ perhaps submitted to court to apply for surveillance or search warrants? Ie-swore that he was told or had info on xy and z, so therefore needed the warrant? When, in fact, there was No basis to apply for the warrant?

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm thinking it may have to do with affidavits GJ perhaps submitted to court to apply for surveillance or search warrants? Ie-swore that he was told or had info on xy and z, so therefore needed the warrant? When, in fact, there was No basis to apply for the warrant?

Though, that still amounts to perjury, as a magistrate would have to authorise a search warrant or surveillance warrant. Perjury is something that I don't believe that Jubes would risk for himself or for his other officers.
He is too well experienced for that. imo

I also am not sure that application for a search warrant is called an affidavit. I believe the actual warrant is filled out, then signed off by a magistrate.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/wha...do-police-apply-for-them-20190607-p51vg8.html

Really good that we are all starting to think about the options. Instead of just bagging Jubes and assuming the worst.
They have all been praised by the chief of the division for the excellent efforts of the investigative team.
As well as the NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, thanking Jubes for his contribution.