Who to believe in the Beale Saga eh? With so much toing and froing, here are three questions that G&GR believes could do with answering.
What’s so different about these two texts?
One is of an overweight naked lady purportedly depicting Di Patston. The other is of an overweight naked lady purportedly depicting Di Patston with a sexual epithet on it. They are both horrendous. Kurtley Beale was found guilty – and admitted – to sending the first message, twice. He’s been fined for it. Surely we move on?
Apparently not. Somehow there is now such a massive difference between the two messages that we must get to the bottom of who authored the second one.
Well if we must, then here’s a few more simple questions.
1. How do you forensically analyse the wrong phone?
Interpreting Whatsapp records (deletable) and phone bills (meta data) is one thing, but I haven’t heard anything about analysing flash drives within Kurtley’s original phone, for example. And now we read in the Australian that in fact Beale had reported losing not just one, but two phones since the texts happened. How much of Beale’s evidence was based on what was in his original phone from June?
2. Why has Di Patston’s phone not been analysed?
It is her employer’s phone and G&GR understands it was returned to the ARU as part of a routine upgrade before the team departed for New Zealand in August. It could well be that this phone went the same way other replaced phones go in organisations – anywhere. But finding it would be a good idea and repeated calls asking why Patston hasn’t handed it in when she did months ago won’t get anyone anywhere.
3. Why won’t Alan Jones and Rebecca Wilson name names?
Apparently they KNOW who sent the second text, for sure, and that there’s untold damage going on while we still aren’t told who the second texter is.
That’s great – so why not tell us? If they KNOW it’s the truth, they’ll have absolutely no problem defending it, especially with their legal resources.