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

[SouthAussie]

“ On Monday Craddock said he expected the evidence would establish William “was taken”.
What evidence can they have to prove William was taken, unless there is an eyewitness, or something obtained from illegal recordings.

That's a really interesting question, kiwi. I wonder if the recordings can be used in a coronial inquiry. While it is a court, things operate somewhat differently within the coronial courtroom. The main intent is to get to the bottom of what happened to the subject of the inquest.

We know that Jubes had been actively working with the coroner for some time, keeping her across the investigation.


Can Evidence That is Recorded Illegally be Used in Court?
This is a complex area of law as it largely depends on who wants the recording as evidence in court, how it was illegally obtained, for what purposes the recording is being admitted as evidence in court and its importance to the case.
Can Evidence That is Recorded Illegally be Used in Court?

 

[SouthAussie]

We also know that it took the top honchos weeks to decide whether or not to charge Jubes.
And we already know that Jubes would only do things that were good for the investigation (aka inquest).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Coroner does use those recordings, after determining that the use of them is in the best interest of the inquest and little William.

Perhaps those recordings are one of the reasons why the Coroner has been asking journos for their photos of the searches, so she can view them.


"For weeks, the top brass has been deliberating whether or not to charge Insp Jubelin, one of the state’s most recognised homicide investigators, with the minor offence after receiving advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was sufficient evidence to proceed."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Jubelin charged over breaches to Listening Devices Act
June 21, 2019 9:02am

 

[Thebottomline]

We also know that it took the top honchos weeks to decide whether or not to charge Jubes.
And we already know that Jubes would only do things that were good for the investigation (aka inquest).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Coroner does use those recordings, after determining that the use of them is in the best interest of the inquest and little William.

Perhaps those recordings are one of the reasons why the Coroner has been asking journos for their photos of the searches, so she can view them.


"For weeks, the top brass has been deliberating whether or not to charge Insp Jubelin, one of the state’s most recognised homicide investigators, with the minor offence after receiving advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was sufficient evidence to proceed."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Jubelin charged over breaches to Listening Devices Act
June 21, 2019 9:02am

Surely it would be unfair that GJ gets charged for something that contributes to an arrest.

 

[frogwell]

“ On Monday Craddock said he expected the evidence would establish William “was taken”.
What evidence can they have to prove William was taken, unless there is an eyewitness, or something obtained from illegal recordings.

The inquest is there to establish in part, how WT disappeared. The surrounding evidence so far is being examined to see if WT could have been overlooked in the searches. If the information shows the coroner that WT could not have been missed during then search, then it goes a lot further towards establishing for the coroner that WT was abducted.

 

[frogwell]

We also know that it took the top honchos weeks to decide whether or not to charge Jubes.
And we already know that Jubes would only do things that were good for the investigation (aka inquest).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Coroner does use those recordings, after determining that the use of them is in the best interest of the inquest and little William.

Perhaps those recordings are one of the reasons why the Coroner has been asking journos for their photos of the searches, so she can view them.


"For weeks, the top brass has been deliberating whether or not to charge Insp Jubelin, one of the state’s most recognised homicide investigators, with the minor offence after receiving advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was sufficient evidence to proceed."

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
Jubelin charged over breaches to Listening Devices Act
June 21, 2019 9:02am

I wish I could read that article, I'd like to know in whose opinion these offences are minor when it carries a max penalty of 5 years or a big fine. The DPP is of a different view and is of the opinion that GJ needs to defend his decision making in a court of law.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wish I could read that article, I'd like to know in whose opinion these offences are minor when it carries a max penalty of 5 years or a big fine. The DPP is of a different view and is of the opinion that GJ needs to defend his decision making in a court of law.

A subscription doesn't cost very much.

It is not possible to determine from the article exactly who thinks it is a minor matter. But it does say that it took weeks for the top brass to decide whether or not to charge him, so I guess that says something.

It certainly wasn't my opinion inserted into an MSM article. And I would hope that no-one here would think that I would ever do something like that.
This is the second time I have been asked for more clarification over MSM words by yourself. That was a direct quote.

 

[Thebottomline]

A subscription doesn't cost very much.

It is not possible to determine from the article exactly who thinks it is a minor matter. But it does say that it took weeks for the top brass to decide whether or not to charge him, so I guess that says something.

It certainly wasn't my opinion inserted into an MSM article. And I would hope that no-one here would think that I would ever do something like that.
This is the second time I have been asked for more clarification over MSM words by yourself. That was a direct quote.

I think it speaks volumes that it took a few weeks to decide. We always here about a maximum penalty with charges but it’s the extreme end.

 

[Karinna]

A subscription doesn't cost very much.

It is not possible to determine from the article exactly who thinks it is a minor matter. But it does say that it took weeks for the top brass to decide whether or not to charge him, so I guess that says something.

It certainly wasn't my opinion inserted into an MSM article. And I would hope that no-one here would think that I would ever do something like that.
This is the second time I have been asked for more clarification over MSM words by yourself. That was a direct quote.

Not everyone wants to subscribe to a newspaper.
(quote)
WS Etiquette & Information
If an article is behind a paywall (i.e., by subscription only), you may post only the link and any portion of the content shown as a free preview.

 

[SouthAussie]

Not everyone wants to subscribe to a newspaper.
(quote)
WS Etiquette & Information
If an article is behind a paywall (i.e., by subscription only), you may post only the link and any portion of the content shown as a free preview.

Thanks for quoting the etiquette to me, Karinna. Perhaps your post should be posted on just about every thread on WS?

Or perhaps I should put it in my own words, for which I was questioned by two members here previously.

Seems whichever way I post the info, I am questioned about the content.

 

[SouthAussie]

Surely it would be unfair that GJ gets charged for something that contributes to an arrest.

Back to the case, and things related to it ....

I think it is unfair from the get-go, but I am also waiting to see what happens on 30th July. Jubes has a top lawyer, an ex top prosecutor. And probably every judge in town knows Jubes and his excellent reputation.

I am also waiting to see if the recordings get used in the inquest. As Craddock said "tip of the iceberg".

 

[sosocurious]

Back to the case, and things related to it ....

I think it is unfair from the get-go, but I am also waiting to see what happens on 30th July. Jubes has a top lawyer, an ex top prosecutor. And probably every judge in town knows Jubes.

I am also waiting to see if the recordings get used in the inquest. As Craddock said "tip of the iceberg".

I am waiting to see if we hear a tiny bit more about these recordings a week before the inquest. Or will there a be an adjournment and we hear nothing before the closely following inquest?

 

[Thebottomline]

Thanks for quoting the etiquette to me, Karinna. Perhaps your post should be posted on just about every thread on WS?

Or perhaps I should put it in my own words, for which I was questioned by two members here previously.

Seems whichever way I post the info, I am questioned about the content.

Thanks south Aussie for your posts . Thanks for always being here for the right reasons too. You always post informatively and respectfully

 

[sleepinoz]

I am waiting to see if we hear a tiny bit more about these recordings a week before the inquest. Or will there a be an adjournment and we hear nothing before the closely following inquest?

That will be interesting

Will they be able to give such evidence whilst this case is in the Coroners Court? Will it just be a 'plea' hearing and no evidence will be given?

Interesting.

 

[SouthAussie]

I am waiting to see if we hear a tiny bit more about these recordings a week before the inquest. Or will there a be an adjournment and we hear nothing before the closely following inquest?

It will be interesting to hear the Ch10 podcast next week. Perhaps that will be more revealing?
It is supposed to change the way everyone thinks about this case. What could that mean?

Perhaps it will allude to the person who Jubes had his focus on, and everyone will be shocked that it was not Spedding - as some of us are pretty sure it wasn't.

 

[Thebottomline]

As the Levesons have quoted , it’s a witch hunt

 

[Thebottomline]

It will be interesting to hear the Ch10 podcast next week. Perhaps that will be more revealing?
It is supposed to change the way everyone thinks about this case. What could that mean?

Perhaps it will allude to the person who Jubes had his focus on, and everyone will be shocked that it was not Spedding - as some of us are pretty sure it wasn't.

Or the media just beating it up. I’m thinking it will be a piece on fc support of GJ

 

[sosocurious]

It will be interesting to hear the Ch10 podcast next week. Perhaps that will be more revealing?
It is supposed to change the way everyone thinks about this case. What could that mean?

Perhaps it will allude to the person who Jubes had his focus on, and everyone will be shocked that it was not Spedding - as some of us are pretty sure it wasn't.

Washing machine repairman Bill Spedding, who was named as a person of interest in the case but was never charged, was also represented by barrister Peter O’Brien.

"Just be very careful how you report this," he told journalists outside court.

"He’s been summoned to attend, so of course he is being represented," Mr O’Brien said when asked why Mr Spedding, who has always denied any involvement in William’s disappearance, had a solicitor.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...-tyrrell-s-disappearance-20181219-p50n5m.html

I wonder if they were able to get any pics of BS at the school presentation? The coroner would know I suppose.

 

[papertrail]

It doesn’t say it was the public pool. As I suggested, could have been a locals pool

Where is the pool that Crabb would drive to.

 

[papertrail]

He didn't drive there, the pool Mr Crabb went to was a local pool in Ellendale Cres ..........it was the first area he & his wife thought to search

Her husband, Peter Crabb, said he “looked in places where a little boy might hide” including driving to a nearby swimming pool but there was “nothing, absolutely nothing”.

In fact your quoted text says Crabb DROVE.

 

[sleepinoz]

In fact your quoted text says Crabb DROVE.

Actually it says "including driving to a nearby swimming pool" NOT - DROVE