We as Jason's family totally dispute this article in fact the statement released to the press present at the inquest on the day in question read as follows:
no
justifiable evidence was given to prove beyond any doubt that Jason was armed
with a replica or otherwise at the time he was shot.
The press seem to be under the control of the QPS or the government. A huge difference in what the family said to what was quoted as what the family said. The family is misquoted in what the media prints. The media will not print anything the family says, but will print what the police or legal representative wants said!! Does not seem fair to me. From what I've read not only is there no evidence to indicate that Jason was armed with the replica, but if what the witness said had been reported, or the witness questioned, we would know some more facts. I fail to see how someone pulling their pockets out, could also at the same time reach up and pull a replica gun out from under his jumper or sweater. It is also questionable evidence to me that the evidence of a three year old could be submitted and accepted. The fact is also questionable that the child was interviewed, if my memory is correct, without the mother. This 3yr old has just had someone who was possibly a father figure shot in front of her, and she is questioned without the mother. The evidence would have to be tainted or whatever the correct terminology. Most 3 year olds would agree with different stories depending on the question and person asking the questions, and if the child felt intimidated, especially something as complicated as this would have been. The only witness and her children were removed immediately, hence the replica could have been found and 'planted'. If the police consider the 'witness' to be not reliable, should they still not have interviewed her and then made the statement as such? Police in internal investigations are too ready to state the witness as a 'crook' or 'self serving'. In reality it is either to justify a sloppy investigative process or the fact that the police have a predetermined opinion of the outcome they want to arrive at, and reinterviewing would not help in the desired result, hence it is ignored. The dog is still a mystery? More to this story, I feel.
When I compare the difference in the way an officer who is targeted for removal is treated to the way these officers are treated I am amazed. I have personal experience of an operational officer removed from active duty within hours of a very minor complaint being made, with no effort made to establish the true facts of the incident. Officers are forcefully moved on any fabricated or magnified charge or complaint, when they have been targeted for removal from their position due to 'pay back'. It is investigated in the same shoddy way the Protheroe case appears to have been investigated, untruths told, collusion amongst officers with an intent to achieve a predetermined outcome, by using untruthful and untested statements. Commissioner down will not review a case, because by that time too many commissioned officers have colluded and told untruths to achieve the desired outcome. Mr Ian Leavers has allegedly made defamatory statements publicly about the family. The new Commissioner has inherited this system, but, turning a blind eye to what has to be corruption within a police service, will do nothing to eradicate dishonesty within the QPS. The Protheroe family appear to have been told so many untruths, facts that appear to change daily, no real effort to establish the absolute truth of what happened. From my personal experience once the untruthful, untested brief of evidence is completed nothing short of a Royal Commission will get to the bottom of this alleged corruption.
You ask what right does the coroner have to treat Krystal Sinn as a an unreliable witness (aka liar)? Isn't the answer obvious? She changed her story throughout, gave implausible answers, gave misleading information and did everything she could to blame the police for what happened.
To Anonymous (June 16, 2013 at 8:11 PM) No the answer is not obvious as to why the Coroner said Krystal Sinn is an unreliable witness. Tell me how Krystal Sinn changed her story throughout, gave implausible answers, gave misleading information and did everything she could to blame the police for what happened? Because I have read all the evidence, sat throughout the whole 10 days of evidence given at the inquest, know that Krystal Sinn was present at the time my son Jason was killed and I don't see how you can make these allegations against her. If I wanted to speculate on an answer you may well be just another police minion trying to distort the facts and under the disguise of Anonymous can say any reckless, ignorant and stupid statement you like. I ask that you be part of the solution not part of the problem. If you have any valid reason for stating what you said say so if not Shut up and keep your unfounded opinions to yourself. Now I could pretend to sign off Anonymous however I have more integrity than to do that (Aka Steve Protheroe - Jason's Father)
The anonymous(June 16,2013 at 8.11pm) has to be a cop. 'did everything she could to blame the police for what happened' this is typical police mentality. The statement also is evidence of so much lacking in the investigative process of QPS. Leavers down believe police have to be protected regardless of what they have done. The treatment to officers targeted by a CO is the same as the treatment to the public. The government supports this lack of transparency. Read CM 18-19 Feb 2012. Career police as Commissioners seems to be a major problem. But the public and officers targeted for speaking out are the losers.
The press seem to be under the control of the QPS or the government. A huge difference in what the family said to what was quoted as what the family said. The family is misquoted in what the media prints. The media will not print anything the family says, but will print what the police or legal representative wants said!! Does not seem fair to me. From what I've read not only is there no evidence to indicate that Jason was armed with the replica, but if what the witness said had been reported, or the witness questioned, we would know some more facts. I fail to see how someone pulling their pockets out, could also at the same time reach up and pull a replica gun out from under his jumper or sweater. It is also questionable evidence to me that the evidence of a three year old could be submitted and accepted. The fact is also questionable that the child was interviewed, if my memory is correct, without the mother. This 3yr old has just had someone who was possibly a father figure shot in front of her, and she is questioned without the mother. The evidence would have to be tainted or whatever the correct terminology. Most 3 year olds would agree with different stories depending on the question and person asking the questions, and if the child felt intimidated, especially something as complicated as this would have been. The only witness and her children were removed immediately, hence the replica could have been found and 'planted'. If the police consider the 'witness' to be not reliable, should they still not have interviewed her and then made the statement as such? Police in internal investigations are too ready to state the witness as a 'crook' or 'self serving'. In reality it is either to justify a sloppy investigative process or the fact that the police have a predetermined opinion of the outcome they want to arrive at, and reinterviewing would not help in the desired result, hence it is ignored. The dog is still a mystery? More to this story, I feel.
ReplyDeleteWhen I compare the difference in the way an officer who is targeted for removal is treated to the way these officers are treated I am amazed. I have personal experience of an operational officer removed from active duty within hours of a very minor complaint being made, with no effort made to establish the true facts of the incident. Officers are forcefully moved on any fabricated or magnified charge or complaint, when they have been targeted for removal from their position due to 'pay back'. It is investigated in the same shoddy way the Protheroe case appears to have been investigated, untruths told, collusion amongst officers with an intent to achieve a predetermined outcome, by using untruthful and untested statements. Commissioner down will not review a case, because by that time too many commissioned officers have colluded and told untruths to achieve the desired outcome. Mr Ian Leavers has allegedly made defamatory statements publicly about the family. The new Commissioner has inherited this system, but, turning a blind eye to what has to be corruption within a police service, will do nothing to eradicate dishonesty within the QPS. The Protheroe family appear to have been told so many untruths, facts that appear to change daily, no real effort to establish the absolute truth of what happened. From my personal experience once the untruthful, untested brief of evidence is completed nothing short of a Royal Commission will get to the bottom of this alleged corruption.
ReplyDeleteYou ask what right does the coroner have to treat Krystal Sinn as a an unreliable witness (aka liar)? Isn't the answer obvious? She changed her story throughout, gave implausible answers, gave misleading information and did everything she could to blame the police for what happened.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous (June 16, 2013 at 8:11 PM) No the answer is not obvious as to why the Coroner said Krystal Sinn is an unreliable witness. Tell me how Krystal Sinn changed her story throughout, gave implausible answers, gave misleading information and did everything she could to blame the police for what happened? Because I have read all the evidence, sat throughout the whole 10 days of evidence given at the inquest, know that Krystal Sinn was present at the time my son Jason was killed and I don't see how you can make these allegations against her. If I wanted to speculate on an answer you may well be just another police minion trying to distort the facts and under the disguise of Anonymous can say any reckless, ignorant and stupid statement you like. I ask that you be part of the solution not part of the problem. If you have any valid reason for stating what you said say so if not Shut up and keep your unfounded opinions to yourself. Now I could pretend to sign off Anonymous however I have more integrity than to do that (Aka Steve Protheroe - Jason's Father)
DeleteThe anonymous(June 16,2013 at 8.11pm) has to be a cop. 'did everything she could to blame the police for what happened' this is typical police mentality. The statement also is evidence of so much lacking in the investigative process of QPS. Leavers down believe police have to be protected regardless of what they have done. The treatment to officers targeted by a CO is the same as the treatment to the public. The government supports this lack of transparency. Read CM 18-19 Feb 2012. Career police as Commissioners seems to be a major problem. But the public and officers targeted for speaking out are the losers.
ReplyDelete