Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #48

[katydid23]

Hi bearbear. I'm confused about PS and why people think he saw something but wouldn't say anything, yet would still search? I am missing something. Can you direct me - a search term/s? I think he was interviewed many years ago - on his porch. I remember something, but never saw anything related to friction between neighbours. Thx if you can help, and sorry if old news

If, hypothetically, he saw something that he wanted to cover up, he might go and search, so he could pretend he didn't see anything nefarious. ?

 

[Wexford]

It could be that PS thinks he's God's gift to women and approached FGM and was rejected like the postie. The postie could drive off but FGM had to live closely to his blowing kisses.
Bad blood?
What was the real reason FGM was moving?

Seems a few neighbours moved away. Nocturnal man. Did I read the Wilson's also moved?

 

[Wexford]

If, hypothetically, he saw something that he wanted to cover up, he might go and search, so he could pretend he didn't see anything nefarious. ?

Possible also he saw something WHILE he was helping to search. Or even found something out later. Either way Jubelin seems to think he knows something and it seems convenient that those recordings could now not be admissible evidence.

 

[Whàngarei]

Seems a few neighbours moved away. Nocturnal man. Did I read the Wilson's also moved?

Yes Wilson’s moved too.

 

[interested64]

Sorry if this is an old topic. If Gary J is found to have acted illegally (come his court dates beginning FEB 3rd), then the recordings will be deemed inadmissible for further use unfortunately, IMO

lets hope she has seen them then

 

[interested64]

it sounds like ps was on speaking terms with fgm though, if its true he visited her that morning to ask what was happening, so probably on speaking terms,
im wondering, if he did see something, would he still go looking if william was seen driven away?
maybe the perp was on foot?
in one of the msm interviews i remember a neighbour (ps?) indicated his opinion of which direction william was taken, or driven away?

I have always thought this,if he had seen something why would he go and face fgm in person and go looking straight away and for days and ditch his sick brother,any sane person would have told the police regardless ... he was a 3yr old boy

 

[interested64]

Possible also he saw something WHILE he was helping to search. Or even found something out later. Either way Jubelin seems to think he knows something and it seems convenient that those recordings could now not be admissible evidence.

just something else to add to this case

 

[they'll get you]

Seems a few neighbours moved away. Nocturnal man. Did I read the Wilson's also moved?

They all moved after William was taken & I can see the reasons why, it would be difficult living on Beneroon Drive with all the rubberneckers driving slooowwwly by.
I wonder if the neighbours are side-eyeing each other not the mention the new neighbours listening to rumours.

 

[SouthAussie]

You could be correct - I hope someone here can clarify the issue. But 'normally' illegally obtained evidence is deemed inadmissible - I'm not sure if the coroner has special powers?

I put up a link ages ago that said she can use illegal recordings (so can a judge) if the recordings are considered 'in the interest of justice'.

I believe there was even a precedence for it. IIRC

IMO she has likely heard them - privately, or in closed court - already. Otherwise how will she determine if they are in the interest of justice?

 

[SouthAussie]

<RSBM>
I wonder whether Gary will argue there was an imminent threat of evidence being destroyed?

Whatever the details are, he has stated ...

BBM
"I had a lawful right and operational need to record those conversations"
Gary Jubelin: William Tyrrell head detective cheered as enters not guilty plea | Daily Mail Online

I think Margaret Cunneen will go hard to show this.

 

[Wexford]

I put up a link ages ago that said she can use illegal recordings (so can a judge) if the recordings are considered 'in the interest of justice'.

I believe there was even a precedence for it. IIRC

IMO she has likely heard them - privately, or in closed court - already. Otherwise how will she determine if they are in the interest of justice?

I hope so. It always seemed very odd to me that those particular recordings were the ones that the accusations towards Jubelin were made over. Don't tell me he didn't record other conversations in this case. Or other cases.

 

[peekinandy]

I put up a link ages ago that said she can use illegal recordings (so can a judge) if the recordings are considered 'in the interest of justice'.

I believe there was even a precedence for it. IIRC

IMO she has likely heard them - privately, or in closed court - already. Otherwise how will she determine if they are in the interest of justice?

Thanks for clearing that up] It's great she has access

 

[SouthAussie]

I hope so. It always seemed very odd to me that those particular recordings were the ones that the accusations towards Jubelin were made over. Don't tell me he didn't record other conversations in this case. Or other cases.

From what I can see, it is said to be a balancing act - determined by the judge - between the competing interests of a persons right to privacy (and legality) and the interest of justice.


BBM
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Courts deciding whether to exclude relevant but unlawfully obtained evidence are faced with two conflicting considerations. Excluding it may result in trials being decided without the most reliable and relevant evidence. Admitting it may be seen as legitimising illicit investigation methods.

Courts in Australia ..... on the other hand, have recognised (in criminal trials at least) a need to balance both of the principles when considering unlawfully obtained evidence. In the words of Barwick CJ in R v Ireland: ‘whenever such unlawfulness or unfairness appears, the judge has a discretion to reject the evidence. He must consider its exercise. In the exercise of it, the competing public requirements must be considered and weighed against each other. On the one hand there is the public need to bring to conviction those who commit criminal offences. On the other hand is the public interest in the protection of the individual from unlawful and unfair treatment. Convictions obtained by the aid of unlawful or unfair acts may be obtained at too high a price. Hence the judicial discretion.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2007/7.pdf

 

[bearbear]

Hi bearbear. I'm confused about PS and why people think he saw something but wouldn't say anything, yet would still search? I am missing something. Can you direct me - a search term/s? I think he was interviewed many years ago - on his porch. I remember something, but never saw anything related to friction between neighbours. Thx if you can help, and sorry if old news

no, its just another theory that maybe ps saw something,
but imo, maybe he wasnt sure whether it was important, but could have mentioned or hinted at when speaking to gj but now cant remember, and gj recorded him hoping it came up again, attented the inquest and exasperated he still had no recall?
and he may have joined in the search because all the neighbours were and he wanted to show support?

 

[mussopossum]

I agree it would be 'inadmissible.' But could the coroner still take a listen, just for their own information?

In other words, the coroner could perhaps gain some important insight in hearing the conversation, that couldn't 'legally' be used from that specific source, but might lead them in the right direction allowing them to find other ways to admit that info.

Wishful thinking, most likely...

Yes that is my question basically Katy

Would not be in open court but could or would it be used pending how significant that information is?

Let say that phone recording (for example) that PS said to Jubelin that he saw a car pull up at 1015 and he recognized this car to belong to so and so. Then he saw the driver get out the car near FG house driveway then back in car and sped off erratically.

But when questioned further down track he denied this comment then out came all the phone conversations apparently reordered without consent.

The above is just an example and not an assumption of what happened but if was something significant that could make an arrest could the coroner use it regardless of the current pending charges of Jubelin.

I know many cases have had similar things and because the legal block as the initial protocol not followed criminals then escaped charges.

So I am answering my own question I guess but yes wishful thinking

 

[mussopossum]

Cleaver Greene. I can't quite remember if it was discussed either. I think it might be more complicated than Peekinandy is saying.

Just like this whole case.... complicated

I respect the law completely but sometimes you just want to see that one time the bad guy doesn't catch a break.

 

[bearbear]

so if gj is cleared of wrongful recording charges, the recordings can be used as evidence?

 

[SouthAussie]

so if gj is cleared of wrongful recording charges, the recordings can be used as evidence?

IMO

I don't believe Jubes is saying the recordings were 'legal'. Just that he had a lawful right to make them. That may help sway any judges decision on whether to allow them or not.



This is how a judge decides whether or not to allow an illegal recording in a criminal case ....

Courts in NSW must exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases under Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 if the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in that way outweighs the desirability of admitting it.

This means that even though the recording was obtained illegally, it may still be used in court if the desirability of admitting the recording outweighs the undesirability of admitting material obtained in that particular way.

Can Evidence That is Recorded Illegally be Used in Court?

 

[mussopossum]

I put up a link ages ago that said she can use illegal recordings (so can a judge) if the recordings are considered 'in the interest of justice'.

I believe there was even a precedence for it. IIRC

IMO she has likely heard them - privately, or in closed court - already. Otherwise how will she determine if they are in the interest of justice?

Thanks for clarification SA

 

[mussopossum]

I wonder how free to speak Jubes will be once the inquest is over ... especially if there is an open finding and William's case gets shoved in a cold case box to gather dust.

Im wondering if he is able to write about it in his book