Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #47

[Cleaver Greene]

Yes, seems to many that it is not the smartest move that NSWPOL have made ... judging by the public support Jubes has received in the online petition.

It may well be that NSWPOL end up with egg on their face if this ends up being a cold case.

Police didn’t have any choice about removing Jubelin. He headed up the investigation and is now accused of illegally obtaining evidence. The entire investigation is under threat. If someone was charged with abducting WT, imagine the outrage if he walked free because evidence was illegally obtained.

In my view, police have completely sidelined Jubelin to salvage the investigation. Or to at least do what they can to give the perception that the evidence that has been illegally obtained has been confined and the person responsible is no longer involved.

I don’t know anything about Lambert but it’s interesting that he’s not giving evidence. Maybe he is collateral damage and he’s been removed “just in case” he knew or condoned the evidence gathering methods.

 

[SouthAussie]

I don’t know anything about Lambert but it’s interesting that he’s not giving evidence.

Lambert was taken off the case and moved to Cold Case Review when Jubes was moved to Exec Offices at HQ.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Police didn’t have any choice about removing Jubelin. He headed up the investigation and is now accused of illegally obtaining evidence. The entire investigation is under threat. If someone was charged with abducting WT, imagine the outrage if he walked free because evidence was illegally obtained.

In my view, police have completely sidelined Jubelin to salvage the investigation. Or to at least do what they can to give the perception that the evidence that has been illegally obtained has been confined and the person responsible is no longer involved.

I don’t know anything about Lambert but it’s interesting that he’s not giving evidence.

Yes it's true that it's alleged, but that's all at this stage. A claim he vehemently denies. So lets wait and see.

It would be a travesty of justice if the recordings were legal but the perp gets off because NSWPOL have bungled this whole affair. That too would be an outrage (a word I'm loathe to use due it's newfound popularity due to SM - it's 'cool' to be outraged' it seems). IMO

What they had was an investigator highly skilled in criminal investigations as opposed to say property, traffic etc and now his expertise is lost. Very sad. IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes it's true that it's alleged, but that's all at this stage. A claim he vehemently denies. So lets wait and see.

It would be a travesty of justice if the recordings were legal but the perp gets off because NSWPOL have bungled this whole affair. That too would be an outrage (a word I'm loathe to use due it's newfound popularity due to SM - it's 'cool' to be outraged' it seems). IMO

What they had was an investigator highly skilled in criminal investigations as opposed to say property, traffic etc and now his expertise is lost. Very sad. IMO.

It was about more than William's case imo.
Jubes has stated that he was sidelined from all of the cases he was working on at the time. He was mothballed ... for political reasons is the belief of many. Just read the public comments on the petition website.

 

[Karinna]

Police didn’t have any choice about removing Jubelin. He headed up the investigation and is now accused of illegally obtaining evidence. The entire investigation is under threat. If someone was charged with abducting WT, imagine the outrage if he walked free because evidence was illegally obtained.

In my view, police have completely sidelined Jubelin to salvage the investigation. Or to at least do what they can to give the perception that the evidence that has been illegally obtained has been confined and the person responsible is no longer involved.

I don’t know anything about Lambert but it’s interesting that he’s not giving evidence. Maybe he is collateral damage and he’s been removed “just in case” he knew or condoned the evidence gathering methods.

I have read on here that it can be SOP for law enforcement to sometimes obtain such recordings to secure a conviction of a perpetrator, and a Judge will sometimes allow such evidence at Trial? But from what i have read about the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, it is illegal to do that and has harsh penalty of up to 5 years in prison and/or $55,000 fine in the article i have linked.
But perhaps that is different for LE?
The Law in NSW: Recording Conversations

 

[interested64]

Just going to add my 2cents worth.

I don't think GJ is indispensable to NSW Police, but I do believe that he is to Williams investigation.

GJ and Lambert were the top 2 detectives in charge of this investigation for almost 4 years, both have been removed.

Yes there are other intelligent investigators that have worked on this case, but not, to my knowledge, as long as GJ and Lambert. They had the 'overall' view and knowledge of the case, which IMO is something that would be required at the Inquest and in the Investigation.

I agree..and i think you need to have something in you that cant be taught..like the fight to keep a promise

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM
The publication reported on Friday the new head of the investigation, Detective David Laidlaw had never worked on the case before he took over earlier this year.
It's also understood he also started the case from scratch due to frosty tensions between former NSW Homicide commander Mick Willing, his successor Scott Cook and Detective Jubelin.
'It's disgusting': William Tyrrell's foster mother launches furious tirade against the police and claims they're 'doing nothing' to find her son five years after he went missing

BBM
That speaks volumes about the leadership of that organisation. It speaks volumes about the way they see what's important.”
The couple also levelled serious allegations at Homicide Commander Scott Cook, claiming he lied to them about the handover of information between Gary Jubelin and the new lead investigator, David Laidlaw.
William Tyrrell's Foster Parents Claim Police Are Doing 'Nothing'

 

[gregjrichards]

It is great to have you here @Cleaver Greene your legal expertise is greatly appreciated and invaluable.

 

[sleepinoz]

Police didn’t have any choice about removing Jubelin.

RSBM - I'll have to disagree with this point.

They had a choice. From memory, Jubelin was removed from all his cases in January, he resigned in May after sitting at a desk for almost 5 months.
They didn't charge him until late in June.

Their choice was to remove him from Williams case was prior to any investigation into the allegations against him. So guilty without an investigation.

IMO it is totally political after new hierarchy had taken up positions - Police Commissioner, Head of Homicide, Premier etc.
Who doesn't want GJ to be more recognisable than them? Or popular?

IMO the fact they waited until after his resignation/retirement from the force to charge him, smells of trying to deter him from having any involvement in the Inquest. I know people will say the investigation took all that time, but that's crap IMO

 

[JLZ]

Police didn’t have any choice about removing Jubelin. He headed up the investigation and is now accused of illegally obtaining evidence. The entire investigation is under threat. If someone was charged with abducting WT, imagine the outrage if he walked free because evidence was illegally obtained.

In my view, police have completely sidelined Jubelin to salvage the investigation. Or to at least do what they can to give the perception that the evidence that has been illegally obtained has been confined and the person responsible is no longer involved.

I don’t know anything about Lambert but it’s interesting that he’s not giving evidence. Maybe he is collateral damage and he’s been removed “just in case” he knew or condoned the evidence gathering methods.

BBM

I don't altogether see that. If police knew the recordings were illegally obtained, they wouldn't produce them as evidence. They'd rely on other evidence instead. If there is no other evidence, if the recordings hadn't been made they wouldn't have got a conviction anyway.

Edit: Or if they tried to produce the recordings as evidence and the judge disallowed it . . . still, surely they're no worse off than they would have been without the recordings in the first place. The possibility of the evidence being disallowed is something to be considered as affecting the strength of their case before laying charges.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

It was about more than William's case imo.
Jubes has stated that he was sidelined from all of the cases he was working on at the time. He was mothballed ... for political reasons is the belief of many. Just read the public comments on the petition website.

That suggests one of three things to me:

1. Political reasons that aren’t yet clear
2. Management issues were so widespread that there couldn’t be a cohesive and workable investigation while he was on a team, or
3. The allegations against him are so serious that his involvement in any investigation would taint that investigation and jeopardise prosecutions

Happy to hear if others have possible reasons.

 

[SouthAussie]

IMO it is totally political after new hierarchy had taken up positions - Police Commissioner, Head of Homicide, Premier etc.
Who doesn't want GJ to be more recognisable than them? Or popular?

RSBM: My guess is Scott Cook. He is the only one who has shown his face to say that the investigation is ongoing. The Premier praised Jubes for his dedication to the force. And Laidlaw is laying low ... perhaps didn't even want the position he has been thrust into. He is a long-standing officer in NSWPOL, with similarities to Jubes. imo

 

[sleepinoz]

RSBM: My guess is Scott Cook. He is the only one who has shown his face to say that the investigation is ongoing. The Premier praised Jubes for his dedication to the force. And Laidlaw is laying low ... perhaps didn't even want the position he has been thrust into. He is a long-standing officer in NSWPOL, with similarities to Jubes. imo

I think Laidlaw is getting close to retiring age

 

[SouthAussie]

I think Laidlaw is getting close to retiring age

Oh great, another Hans Rupp running the case. Counting down the clock.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

BBM

I don't altogether see that. If police knew the recordings were illegally obtained, they wouldn't produce them as evidence. They'd rely on other evidence instead. If there is no other evidence, if the recordings hadn't been made they wouldn't have got a conviction anyway.

Once it is known that a police officer has gotten evidence illegally, then every piece of evidence would be scrutinised by defence. Defence lawyers all know that sometimes shortcuts are taken, but we just can’t prove it. If it is known that an officer has taken an unlawful shortcut, then his/her credibility is already under attack.

What I found so unusual about the recordings is that their existence was publicised before an arrest was made. Usually a lawyer would only stumble on something like that by accident. For example, if an officer accidentally referred to an undisclosed recording in a statement.

I’m sure that police illegally record conversations all the time. They would then use that recording to find other, admissible evidence and the recording would never see the light of day. But if it was ever found out that evidence was obtained as a result of illegally obtained evidence, then none of it is admissible. It’s called the “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument. All evidence obtained from the poisoned evidence is inadmissible.

What I don’t understand is how the illegally recorded conversations were found out in this case. I could speculate on possible scenarios, but it would only be speculation. I have no inside knowledge in this case.

 

[JLZ]

Once it is known that a police officer has gotten evidence illegally, then every piece of evidence would be scrutinised by defence. Defence lawyers all know that sometimes shortcuts are taken, but we just can’t prove it. If it is known that an officer has taken an unlawful shortcut, then his/her credibility is already under attack.

What I found so unusual about the recordings is that their existence was publicised before an arrest was made. Usually a lawyer would only stumble on something like that by accident. For example, if an officer accidentally referred to an undisclosed recording in a statement.

I’m sure that police illegally record conversations all the time. They would then use that recording to find other, admissible evidence and the recording would never see the light of day. But if it was ever found out that evidence was obtained as a result of illegally obtained evidence, then none of it is admissible. It’s called the “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument. All evidence obtained from the poisoned evidence is inadmissible.

What I don’t understand is how the illegally recorded conversations were found out in this case. I could speculate on possible scenarios, but it would only be speculation. I have no inside knowledge in this case.

Thank you. It's terrific having a lawyer here.

 

[Cleaver Greene]

I have read on here that it can be SOP for law enforcement to sometimes obtain such recordings to secure a conviction of a perpetrator, and a Judge will sometimes allow such evidence at Trial? But from what i have read about the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, it is illegal to do that and has harsh penalty of up to 5 years in prison and/or $55,000 fine in the article i have linked.
But perhaps that is different for LE?
The Law in NSW: Recording Conversations

Yes, judges can authorise listening devices and other investigation methods that would otherwise be unlawful. Police have to explain to the judge why they believe it is necessary and if the judge agrees, then it can be done. But it’s always a very specific authorisation. I was involved in one case where police asked for warrants for several listening devices between various parties. Some, but not all, were granted. The judge didn’t think there was enough reason for all of the ones requested.

 

[Karinna]

IMO the fact that WT was a fostered child and ward of the state has done nothing to help this case obtain resolution. It has made it even more complex with all the secrecy & suppression involved, and i really don't think it has helped get to the truth of the matter unfortunately for the little victim caught in the all the nuances of this case.

 

[SLouTh]

Once it is known that a police officer has gotten evidence illegally, then every piece of evidence would be scrutinised by defence. Defence lawyers all know that sometimes shortcuts are taken, but we just can’t prove it. If it is known that an officer has taken an unlawful shortcut, then his/her credibility is already under attack.

What I found so unusual about the recordings is that their existence was publicised before an arrest was made. Usually a lawyer would only stumble on something like that by accident. For example, if an officer accidentally referred to an undisclosed recording in a statement.

I’m sure that police illegally record conversations all the time. They would then use that recording to find other, admissible evidence and the recording would never see the light of day. But if it was ever found out that evidence was obtained as a result of illegally obtained evidence, then none of it is admissible. It’s called the “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument. All evidence obtained from the poisoned evidence is inadmissible.

What I don’t understand is how the illegally recorded conversations were found out in this case. I could speculate on possible scenarios, but it would only be speculation. I have no inside knowledge in this case.

Maybe someone has a very good lawyer indeed? And / or that lawyer has an exceptional research assistant??

 

[sleepinoz]

@Cleaver Greene

I understand that you are a Verified Attorney, may I ask what type of Law you practice?