Jack DeBelin interview

[muzby]

Your trolling is jedi master level.

The sad part is, on serious matters like this I’m actually trying to discuss differing points of view.

When it’s on field football related however , I’ll take your compliment..

 

[Gareth67]

Not sure why you two feel the need to get personal. That just ruins the thread.

I’m asking the guy to explain a post he made on a public forum as it makes no sense.

Discussing the issue, not the person. Not sure why you can’t delineate between the two.

If you actually read the thread you’d see he’s edited his thread to make that “stop” request after I replied to him.

Now, if you two could please stop your online bullying by telling others to avoid interacting with me that would be appreciated.

As you are fully aware , my post was off a helpful nature to Gardenia . I was in no way being personal and if offering advice to a fellow forum member is perceived as ‘ bullying ‘ by you , then that is akin to the pot calling the kettle black .

 

[muzby]

As you are fully aware , my post was off a helpful nature to Gardenia . I was in no way being personal and if offering advice to a fellow forum member is perceived as ‘ bullying ‘ by you , then that is akin to the pot calling the kettle black .

Sorry mate, but it’s not the first time you’ve either told others to stop talking to me, or joined in the pile on with the usual suspects.

The matter at hand with gardenia was trying to find out what he meant by what he posted, it’s clearly not bullying. And if you think it is, feel free to report me.

And as is clearly evident by the time stamp he changed his post after I replied to him.

So pull your head in and don’t start accusing me of participating in the same behaviour as you.

Let’s keep the thread discussing the case & the associate issues, and avoid the personal shit.

 

[Willow]

Locking this thread till tomorrow. Some of you kids are getting a bit over tired.

Edit: thread now re-opened. Bright new day, wake up.

 

[TruSaint]

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

 

[Overseas dragon]

^^ it’s always amusing when Overseas Dragon calls somebody else dumb when they can’t even use a quote function.

That aside, if you could please help me out given you’re so wise on the matter - how have fans been punished because of the stand down policy?

Every fan that enjoys watching JACK cut in have opposition forwards but I would have thought a mastermind like you agent Orange would certainly now that.......but what do I know ..........

 

[muzby]

Every fan that enjoys watching JACK cut in have opposition forwards but I would have thought a mastermind like you agent Orange would certainly now that.......but what do I know ..........

Well that has to be a record between thread reopening an the first personal attack..

But, let’s discuss the issue, not the person, yeah?

I would hardly say that not seeing DeBelin make a tackle is any way shape or form a punishment.

When he misses games due to injury, suspension or being away on rep duty, are fans being punished then too?

 

[_Johnsy]

Locking this thread till tomorrow. Some of you kids are getting a bit over tired.

Edit: thread now re-opened. Bright new day, wake up.

I find your tone a tad aggressive. Maybe a schooner at the grand may help

 

[Willow]

I find your tone a tad aggressive. Maybe a schooner at the grand may help

I hear they've got Reschs there now. So you're on.

 

[_Johnsy]

I hear they've got Reschs there now. So you're on.

Ahhhhh the silver bullet on tap. Life is good.

 

[Gardenia]

Mate you have exhausted all avenues with this bloke - with respect it’s time you use the ‘ ignore option ‘ on your account settings .

Cannot ignore a staff member

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

The Sydney Morning Herald

• Detective investigating Jack de Belin rape case admits lying to court

November 18, 2020 — 1.58pm


A NSW Police detective investigating rape claims against Jack de Belin has admitted lying to a court about legally protected material he accessed on the St George Illawarra footballer's phone.

However, the Senior Constable, who cannot be legally identified, denied he then used the confidential messages between the Dragons player and his lawyer to undermine the footballer's defence against multiple charges of sexual assault.

Under questioning before a jury from Mr de Belin's defence barrister David Campbell SC, the officer admitted to scrolling through messages from the player's seized Nokia mobile in December 2019. He denied that he then spoke to Mr de Belin's accuser about the content of those messages.

Mr Campbell put to the officer: "You were looking through that material ... in the hope that there may be in that material something that could undermine the defence of Mr de Belin, correct?"


The officer replied: "It's incorrect."

In a previous court exchange in February, read out to the jury in the NSW District Court in Wollongong on Wednesday, the officer admitted to lying about his knowledge of messages between Mr de Belin and a contact called "Craig lawyer", revealed to be lawyer Craig Osborne, were to do with the rape case.

"You gave false evidence to his honour under oath, didn't you?" asked an unnamed lawyer during that previous hearing. The detective answered, "Yes."

After reading parts of that exchange, Mr Campbell put to the officer on Wednesday that during that hearing, "you wilfully lied to the court". The officer replied: "Yes."

The detective also denied burying accounts that didn't fit the accuser's story. However, he said he failed to disclose inconsistencies in the woman's narrative before the trial against Mr de Belin and Shellharbour Sharks footballer Callan Sinclair began.


Mr de Belin, 29, and Mr Sinclair, 23, have both pleaded not guilty to five charges of aggravated sexual assault over allegations they raped a 19-year-old woman in a Wollongong apartment in the early hours of December 9, 2018.

They both claim to have had consensual sex with the woman, whom they met at a nearby bar earlier.

Mr Campbell also questioned the officer about differences that arose between an internal document created when he spoke to the woman on the afternoon of December 9 and her statement that was taken over the following two days.

The court heard the internal police document - which was not included in the brief of evidence but produced later by state prosecutors - described the woman's initial account of going to the apartment because of Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair wanting to get changed before going to another nightclub.


However, Mr Campbell said the woman's statement taken on December 10 and 11 outlined the men's reasons for going to the Gipps Street property as being to charge their mobile phones.

Mr Campbell put to the officer: "You buried it because it didn’t assist the complainant to have her giving inconsistent accounts."

The officer replied: "I didn't bury it at all."

"You denied the jury the opportunity to know that there was this inconsistent utterance of the complainant didn’t you," Mr Campbell alleged, which the officer denied.

The jury heard the internal document also contained allegations both Mr Sinclair and Mr de Belin forcibly removed the woman's shorts, whereas the later statement only alleged Mr de Belin had done this.


Mr Campbell described this as a "fundamental shift" in the woman's evidence, which had not been disclosed.

Asked whether it would have been important to do this, the detective responded, "in hindsight, yes."

Under questioning by Mr Campbell, the officer conceded he had an obligation to disclose inconsistent accounts in the woman's evidence to both the prosecution and defence team and that he had not done this.

The trial continues.



https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...se-admits-lying-to-court-20201118-p56fne.html

 

[Gareth67]

The Sydney Morning Herald

• Detective investigating Jack de Belin rape case admits lying
• 
  to court

November 18, 2020 — 1.58pm


A NSW Police detective investigating rape claims against Jack de Belin has admitted lying to a court about legally protected material he accessed on the St George Illawarra footballer's phone.

However, the Senior Constable, who cannot be legally identified, denied he then used the confidential messages between the Dragons player and his lawyer to undermine the footballer's defence against multiple charges of sexual assault.

Under questioning before a jury from Mr de Belin's defence barrister David Campbell SC, the officer admitted to scrolling through messages from the player's seized Nokia mobile in December 2019. He denied that he then spoke to Mr de Belin's accuser about the content of those messages.

Mr Campbell put to the officer: "You were looking through that material ... in the hope that there may be in that material something that could undermine the defence of Mr de Belin, correct?"


The officer replied: "It's incorrect."

In a previous court exchange in February, read out to the jury in the NSW District Court in Wollongong on Wednesday, the officer admitted to lying about his knowledge of messages between Mr de Belin and a contact called "Craig lawyer", revealed to be lawyer Craig Osborne, were to do with the rape case.

"You gave false evidence to his honour under oath, didn't you?" asked an unnamed lawyer during that previous hearing. The detective answered, "Yes."

After reading parts of that exchange, Mr Campbell put to the officer on Wednesday that during that hearing, "you wilfully lied to the court". The officer replied: "Yes."

The detective also denied burying accounts that didn't fit the accuser's story. However, he said he failed to disclose inconsistencies in the woman's narrative before the trial against Mr de Belin and Shellharbour Sharks footballer Callan Sinclair began.


Mr de Belin, 29, and Mr Sinclair, 23, have both pleaded not guilty to five charges of aggravated sexual assault over allegations they raped a 19-year-old woman in a Wollongong apartment in the early hours of December 9, 2018.

They both claim to have had consensual sex with the woman, whom they met at a nearby bar earlier.

Mr Campbell also questioned the officer about differences that arose between an internal document created when he spoke to the woman on the afternoon of December 9 and her statement that was taken over the following two days.

The court heard the internal police document - which was not included in the brief of evidence but produced later by state prosecutors - described the woman's initial account of going to the apartment because of Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair wanting to get changed before going to another nightclub.


However, Mr Campbell said the woman's statement taken on December 10 and 11 outlined the men's reasons for going to the Gipps Street property as being to charge their mobile phones.

Mr Campbell put to the officer: "You buried it because it didn’t assist the complainant to have her giving inconsistent accounts."

The officer replied: "I didn't bury it at all."

"You denied the jury the opportunity to know that there was this inconsistent utterance of the complainant didn’t you," Mr Campbell alleged, which the officer denied.

The jury heard the internal document also contained allegations both Mr Sinclair and Mr de Belin forcibly removed the woman's shorts, whereas the later statement only alleged Mr de Belin had done this.


Mr Campbell described this as a "fundamental shift" in the woman's evidence, which had not been disclosed.

Asked whether it would have been important to do this, the detective responded, "in hindsight, yes."

Under questioning by Mr Campbell, the officer conceded he had an obligation to disclose inconsistent accounts in the woman's evidence to both the prosecution and defence team and that he had not done this.

The trial continues.



https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...se-admits-lying-to-court-20201118-p56fne.html

Yesterday I said that the behavior of this detective and his non-compliance the normal procedure involving restricted evidence may cause a mis-trial . Now these later revelations of the same individual admitting to actually lying in court must have the judge/magistrate seriously thinking of dismissing the case lock , stock and barrel .

 

[Gareth67]

Cannot ignore a staff member

Yes you can love . Just think of him as the Dragons forum’s version of Cameron Smith .

 

[TruSaint]

Yesterday I said that the behavior of this detective and his non-compliance the normal procedure involving restricted evidence may cause a mis-trial . Now these later revelations of the same individual admitting to actually lying in court must have the judge/magistrate seriously thinking of dismissing the case lock , stock and barrel .

This paragraph to me anyway, suggests that the cops false statement under oath was known in February and would have been taken into account for the actual trial.

In a previous court exchange in February, read out to the jury in the NSW District Court in Wollongong on Wednesday, the officer admitted to lying about his knowledge of messages between Mr de Belin and a contact called "Craig lawyer", revealed to be lawyer Craig Osborne, were to do with the rape case.

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

Yesterday I said that the behavior of this detective and his non-compliance the normal procedure involving restricted evidence may cause a mis-trial . Now these later revelations of the same individual admitting to actually lying in court must have the judge/magistrate seriously thinking of dismissing the case lock , stock and barrel .

The officer should be charged with perjury. He has admitted to lying on the stand under oath.

 

[TruSaint]

The officer should be charged with perjury. He has admitted to lying on the stand under oath.

He may face charges later.
The fact his name is being withheld, and so far seems to be beneficial for the defense.
Time will tell, but I cant see a mistrial as these discoveries ( perjury) were known back in pre-trial hearings.

 

[Gareth67]

This paragraph to me anyway, suggests that the cops false statement under oath was known in February and would have been taken into account for the actual trial.

In a previous court exchange in February, read out to the jury in the NSW District Court in Wollongong on Wednesday, the officer admitted to lying about his knowledge of messages between Mr de Belin and a contact called "Craig lawyer", revealed to be lawyer Craig Osborne, were to do with the rape case.

I did miss that and as you have said it certainly would had been taken into account before this trial . I suppose that lawyer Campbell is merely attempting to refresh the courts mind as to the true (?) nature of the detective and by so doing scoring some points .

 

[TruSaint]

I did miss that and as you have said it certainly would had been taken into account before this trial . I suppose that lawyer Campbell is merely attempting to refresh the courts mind as to the true (?) nature of the detective and by so doing scoring some points .

It's only my interpretation mate.