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

[Chrissy74]

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

thread #50 page 12 dated Feb 04 2020

 

[Chrissy74]

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

thread #50 page 12 dated Feb 04 2020

 

[they'll get you]

GJ would be a hero if he had nabbed a murderer’s confession. Would the audio be credible evidence?
IMO it’s all a crock of Schlitt.

I hope the rat that squealed is hungry and jobless.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

thread #50 page 12 dated Feb 04 2020

@SouthAussie posted a link that says that allegation was false, and doesn't it make you (not you specifically) think who put that junior officer up to that, to lie?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

GJ would be a hero if he had nabbed a murderer’s confession. Would the audio be credible evidence?
IMO it’s all a crock of Schlitt.

I hope the rat that squealed is hungry and jobless.

well not likely TGY, probably promoted. But may they wear the cloak of shame.

 

[Chrissy74]

GJ would be a hero if he had nabbed a murderer’s confession. Would the audio be credible evidence?
IMO it’s all a crock of Schlitt.

I hope the rat that squealed is hungry and jobless.

If that were the case then wouldn’t that recorded confession done either with a warrant or without be brought before a judge or coroner and it would be to their discretion if that information is admissible or not?
But yes I do totally agree that what was done was Jubelin by his own colleagues was disgusting. It’s the dog of all dog acts. I love Jubelin I have nothing but admiration for him and his work and work ethics

 

[Chrissy74]

@SouthAussie posted a link that says that allegation was false, and doesn't it make you (not you specifically) think who put that junior officer up to that, to lie?

Ok so what was Jubelin intending on doing this those recordings? Had he not mentioned making these recordings to other officers on the task force then there wouldn’t have been a problem. He would have simply recorded them to protect his interests which is completely understandable and if the situation ever arose where his intentions were compromised by PS then bring forth the recordings to back himself. But I don’t think that was ever the case so I’m confused as to why he told others about the recordings he made

 

[Tinker Taylor]

thread #50 page 12 dated Feb 04 2020

Yes, I read the article.
Was this the evidence of DS Greg Gallyot?

 

[they'll get you]

IIRC (in my words), on 60minutes recording when GJ was quizzing PS about the white on the suit he saw & GJ said there was no white on the suit that was found in the bush and PS backtracked and said ‘I wouldn’t know’.
The white spider was on the suit William was wearing but NOT on on the suit PS saw in the bush.

Dammit GJ was so close.
IMO.

 

[Chrissy74]

IIRC (in my words), on 60minutes recording when GJ was quizzing PS about the white on the suit he saw & GJ said there was no white on the suit that was found in the bush and PS backtracked and said ‘I wouldn’t know’.
The white spider was on the suit William was wearing but NOT on on the suit PS saw in the bush.

Dammit GJ was so close.
IMO.

what PS said was that he saw a white top NOT he saw white on a top. And I’ve gone over PS comment about the white top many times over in my mind and it still baffles me. Let’s say for argument sake PS was referring to the white spider on WT’s spidy suit, with both red and blue being the prominent colours why would PS have said white and not red or blue? PS only mentions the “white top” when he calls GJ the following day after being questioned about the sighting and retracts his statement, suggesting he did in fact see it that day in question but wasn’t sure what it was until he again walked past it the following day. I’d love to hear the entire recording from both at the station and the phone call to GJ to get a better idea of whether or not “white” was ever bought up in those conversations strategically to PS and that’s why he mentions that particular colour

 

[JLZ]

@SouthAussie posted a link that says that allegation was false, and doesn't it make you (not you specifically) think who put that junior officer up to that, to lie?

I am not sure why you are conflating what seem to be two different matters. GJ was originally also charged with having made false affidavits, but the charge was withdrawn, and GJ says the claim was a lie. And a junior officer said at the trial that GJ told him to pass off transcripts as having come from a device covered by a warrant (this is what Soso's post in thread 50 page 12 is about).

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I am not sure why you are conflating what seem to be two different matters. GJ was originally also charged with having made false affidavits, but the charge was withdrawn, and GJ says the claim was a lie. And a junior officer said at the trial that GJ told him to pass off transcripts as having come from a device covered by a warrant (this is what Soso's post in thread 50 page 12 is about).

and where would the need for an affadavit come into it? Isn't it a sworn statement that something is true so it can be used in court? I could be wrong but to pass something off as true, an affadavit would have to be signed. The transcripts would have to be covered by an affadavit that they were from a device that's under a warrant.

 

[Chrissy74]

I am not sure why you are conflating what seem to be two different matters. GJ was originally also charged with having made false affidavits, but the charge was withdrawn, and GJ says the claim was a lie. And a junior officer said at the trial that GJ told him to pass off transcripts as having come from a device covered by a warrant (this is what Soso's post in thread 50 page 12 is about).

Because I don’t quite understand what GJ intended on doing with these recordings knowing they were done without a warrant and most likely would be admissible in court unless he was hoping to include them in the affidavit in a way that made them appear legally recorded.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Ok so what was Jubelin intending on doing this those recordings? Had he not mentioned making these recordings to other officers on the task force then there wouldn’t have been a problem. He would have simply recorded them to protect his interests which is completely understandable and if the situation ever arose where his intentions were compromised by PS then bring forth the recordings to back himself. But I don’t think that was ever the case so I’m confused as to why he told others about the recordings he made

He had them transcribed, why would he keep them secret? These kind of recordings are par for the course in Qld and Victoria, Jubelin thought because he had the warrant for PS's house being bugged, it covered him. PS said the post lady was lying, he may have said other things that were strange, Jubelin thought he was delusional, a delusional person can hear your words and interpret them completely different to how they're meant. He wanted to protect himself from being accused of something he didn't say.

 

[Tinker Taylor]

I am not sure why you are conflating what seem to be two different matters. GJ was originally also charged with having made false affidavits, but the charge was withdrawn, and GJ says the claim was a lie. And a junior officer said at the trial that GJ told him to pass off transcripts as having come from a device covered by a warrant (this is what Soso's post in thread 50 page 12 is about).

"GJ was originally also charged with having made false affidavits, but the charge was withdrawn, and GJ says the claim was a lie."
If a charge of making false affidavits was withdrawn, then can we deduce that there was no lie and the affidavits were true? Do we know what these affidavits were in relation to?

"And a junior officer said at the trial that GJ told him to pass off transcripts as having come from a device covered by a warrant"
I thought the problem was that the warrant had expired, not that the warrant did not cover the device (phone)?

Confused!

 

[Chrissy74]

and where would the need for an affadavit come into it? Isn't that a sworn statement that something is true so it can be used in court? I could be wrong but to pass something off as true, an affadavit would have to be signed. The transcripts would have to be covered by an affadavit that they were from a device that's under

He had them transcribed, why would he keep them secret? These kind of recordings are par for the course in Qld and Victoria, Jubelin thought because he had the warrant for PS's house being bugged, it covered him. PS said the post lady was lying, he may have said other things that were strange, Jubelin thought he was delusional, a delusional person can hear your words and interpret them completely different to how they're meant. He wanted to protect himself from being accused of something he didn't say.

the warrant for such recordings covered PS’s landline and mobile. GJ had another colleague tape the conversation between him and PS while having his phone on loud speaker so not only had the warrant expired for a little over a week the warrant also didn’t cover the use another officers phone to record conversations. As for GJ recording conversations as a way of protecting himself against PS making possible false claims then hell yeh for sure he had the right to do that but those recordings should never have been mentioned to other officers unless such a circumstance arose. Which it didn’t

 

[Chrissy74]

Prime Suspect
the warrant for such recordings covered PS’s landline and mobile. GJ had another colleague tape the conversation between him and PS while having his phone on loud speaker so not only had the warrant expired for a little over a week the warrant also didn’t cover the use another officers phone to record conversations. As for GJ recording conversations as a way of protecting himself against PS making possible false claims then hell yeh for sure he had the right to do that but those recordings should never have been mentioned to other officers unless such
a circumstance arose. Which it didn’t

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Prime Suspect
the warrant for such recordings covered PS’s landline and mobile. GJ had another colleague tape the conversation between him and PS while having his phone on loud speaker so not only had the warrant expired for a little over a week the warrant also didn’t cover the use another officers phone to record conversations. As for GJ recording conversations as a way of protecting himself against PS making possible false claims then hell yeh for sure he had the right to do that but those recordings should never have been mentioned to other officers unless such
a circumstance arose. Which it didn’t

Jubelin was covering himself, he says he was stupid for doing it. But no Chrissy, in the state of NSW, you can't secretly record a conversation between yourself and someone else without them giving consent. But, imo, Jubelin was trying to cover his bases, protect himself and also, if PS gave vital information during the conversation, he could work with it. Have a situation, a place or time, anything to lead him to WT. I can't see how it'd work, if Jubelin, lets say, did a dig in a certain spot, without giving a reason how he came to pick that spot though.
Jubelin didn't want WT's case filed away as a cold case, to be looked at in god knows how many years time.

I'm just hoping he wins his appeal, he deserves a clean slate to get on with his life.

 

[JLZ]

and where would the need for an affadavit come into it? Isn't it a sworn statement that something is true so it can be used in court? I could be wrong but to pass something off as true, an affadavit would have to be signed. The transcripts would have to be covered by an affadavit that they were from a device that's under a warrant.

Yes--though I imagine it would need to be the transcribing officer who swore the affidavit, not GJ.

I have always wondered whether the affidavit/s in question pertained to the obtaining of the warrants that were granted. In order to get a warrant GJ would have prepared an affidavit as to the circumstances that in his view justified it; and the judge would make a decision whether or not to grant the warrant on that basis. If so, somebody at some stage thought that the affidavits in support of the warrants overstated the strength of the case against PS, but later it was decided that the point couldn't be sustained.

 

[JLZ]

Jubelin was covering himself, he says he was stupid for doing it. But no Chrissy, in the state of NSW, you can't secretly record a conversation between yourself and someone else without them giving consent. But, imo, Jubelin was trying to cover his bases, protect himself and also, if PS gave vital information during the conversation, he could work with it. Have a situation, a place or time, anything to lead him to WT. I can't see how it'd work, if Jubelin, lets say, did a dig in a certain spot, without giving a reason how he came to pick that spot though.
Jubelin didn't want WT's case filed away as a cold case, to be looked at in god knows how many years time.

I'm just hoping he wins his appeal, he deserves a clean slate to get on with his life.

I think he made some bad decisions due to being overstressed. He could have had the conversations and recorded them if he'd not perceived them as so urgent they needed to happen when he didn't have an applicable warrant. It was argued at the trial that there was no particular urgency, but stress distorts a person's sense of how urgently something has to be done. He had enemies and they saw their chance.