It seems that PS's vehicle was taken not just for fingerprinting but for 'forensic examination', but not until years later, since the reporting says the vehicle was returned in December 2018. I doubt if police had his vehicle in their custody for four years. That suggests (to me) that none of the neighbours' vehicles had been forensically examined at the time? The fact that police returned the vehicle to PS indicates that nothing was found of W, else they would have kept it as evidence. I believe that even after years, they'd still be able to find something of him in a vehicle during a forensic examination (which is why LE likely bothered to take his vehicle for examination so many years later). imo.
Also, maybe it's just me, but if someone had kidnapped and done something with a neighbour's grandchild in a high profile case and they had their vehicle taken for forensic examination, I don't think they'd be calling to complain about fingerprint dust being left in the vehicle, I'm thinking they would just want to detach themselves as much as possible from the case, period. On the other hand, if a neighbour/person had nothing to do with it and police seized their vehicle years later and then returned it a mess, I think it would be normal to complain. jmo.
In May, 2018, Jubelin used his phone to record two further conversations with Mr Savage at his house.
“It’s the prosecution case that was not a surveillance device that was authorised under the warrant to record that private conversation,” Mr Hogan said.
Then in December that year, Jubelin recorded another conversation with Mr Savage after the 75-year-old called him to complain about the state police had returned his car in.
The car had been seized for forensic examination and there was fingerprint dust left on it.
Jubelin was on leave but went around to his house anyway.
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
