04 Alan Jones | Why Complainant J says he didn’t fight back

Complainant J’s week of evidence has wrapped up, after a series of confrontational lines of questioning from Alan Jones’s defence barrister. Court reporter Isobel Roe takes Stocky through the key moments in the long cross examination, and re-examination from the Crown. We also answer your questions on what is actually illegal about the allegations, why certain questions are allowed when cross examining alleged victims, and more. If you have any questions you’d like Isobel and Stocky to answer in future episodes, please email [email protected] mailto:[email protected]. Sexual assault support services: MARS Australia (for men affected by rape and sexual abuse) https://marsaustralia.com.au/ on (07) 3857 1222, National Survivors Foundation https://igff.org.au/ on 1300 124 43 The Case Of is the follow-up to the hit podcast Mushroom Case Daily, and all episodes of that show will remain available in the back catalogue of The Case Of.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Why did Matthew Flinders write such saucy letters to his best friend, George Bass?

• 0:06Stephen Stockwell?

  Who really chopped off choppers' ears?

• 0:09Speaker 00

  And why did they name a swimming pool after an Australian Prime Minister who drowned?

• 0:16Stephen Stockwell?

  I mean, why didn't they just use Harry Holt's high school nickname, Puss? These are the kind of historical questions we'll be asking on The Dead Can't Sue.

• 0:26Speaker 00

  Search The Dead Can't Sue podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

• 0:30Speaker 02

  ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

• 0:45Stephen Stockwell?

  As we drew to the end of the first complainant's evidence, Alan Jones's defence team have dialled up their attack on his recollections, whether or not his memory is accurate or if this happened at all. I'm Stephen Stockwell, just a heads up, there is some graphic language in this episode. This is episode four of the case of Alan Jones.

• 1:07Speaker 03

  Veteran broadcaster Alan Jones has been a giant of the Australian media landscape.

• 1:12Speaker 04

  Some people said that he was more powerful than the Prime Minister. There was an 83 year old male arrested this morning.

• 1:20Speaker 05

  Detectives from the Child Abuse Squad turned up at Alan Jones's luxury apartment down there at Circular Key.

• 1:25Speaker 03

  Following allegations that he indecently assaulted multiple young men.

• 1:29Speaker 06

  I'm not going to dwell here on the allegations made about me, other than to say that I refute them entirely.

• 1:35Stephen Stockwell?

  The first chapter of Alan Jones's trial has almost concluded. Evidence from complainant Jay and witnesses relating to that are being heard before the court in Sydney at the moment. And there's plenty that has unfolded over the last couple of days. There have been challenges to recollections and allegations that this whole thing has been made up by this witness. In there, in court, as this has all unfolded, has been ABC Court reporter Isobel Rowe, who has been following along for us with the case of Alan Jones. Welcome Isabel.

• 2:05Speaker 03

  Nice to see you again, Stocky.

• 2:06Stephen Stockwell?

  Really appreciate having your insight with us here on the case of Isabel. I mean, it's not long between pods at this stage. We've had a lot to unpack, but can you give us an idea of where we're going in this episode in 60 seconds or so?

• 2:19Speaker 03

  Yes, so we've had a lot more challenges to Jay's account of his visit to Fitzroy Falls. We've gone back through some of the really graphic stuff, the timeline of what allegedly happened there. This time, defence has questioned whether Jay was remembering things incorrectly, or whether he was making them up completely. And there's also been an opportunity for Jay towards the end in his reexamination to explain why he says he didn't ever push Alan Jones away in any of these alleged encounters.

• 2:54Stephen Stockwell?

  Thank you, Isabel. Yeah, lots to unpack in this episode. I think the way we have seen these kind of challenges from the defence to complainant Jay kind of increasing over the final stage of the cross-examination was really interesting. Alan Jones's barrister, Gabrielle Bashir, really kind of, yeah, as you mentioned, dialing that up. And then in the reexamination, the way that Jay clarifies some of his statements and the reason he hasn't reacted, I found fascinating. We'll talk more about that as we move through this episode. First though, really the defence has challenged complainant Jay's memory of what happened when he stayed at Alan Jones's Fitzroy Falls property. At times, quite confrontational questioning, really.

• 3:34Speaker 03

  It really has been confrontational and the defence's cross-examination has went on longer than the evidence in chief, so more than three days of cross-examination for Jay.

• 3:46Speaker 03

  We started in the most recent day at Fitzroy Falls, the farm stay that Alan Jones took Jay to.

• 3:56Speaker 03

  We heard initially about the first alleged kiss at this property, near a pigsty, when they were taking a tour essentially of this place that they'd just arrived at. Gabrielle Bashir said, you know, that kiss didn't happen at all, did it? And Jay said, yes, it did. And they talked about, he was questioned about the warning, or whether he was given a warning for it. He had previously, Jay had previously talked about when he felt Alan Jones was going to kiss him, he would sometimes say something like, I love you, mate. He would allegedly put his arms out like he was going to give him a hug. But in this case, Jay gave evidence that he felt Alan Jones just sort of turned towards him and quickly gave him a kiss.

• 4:42Speaker 03

  Now Gabrielle Bashir picked up on that and she said, but previously you've said you thought he said, I love you in this instance. Now you're saying that it was a quick one, that there was no warning. And Jay said, look, I'm just telling you what I remember now. This is my memory now, that he didn't say, I love you, mate, or anything. He just allegedly turned towards him and sort of kissed him suddenly, I guess. There was also questions to him about why he didn't say anything to anyone else on the property. So we heard in Jay's evidence in chief and also under questioning that there was a maintenance man staying at the Fitzroy Farm property as well. There was a chef.

• 5:25Speaker 03

  Potentially, there was a butler or somebody else. It wasn't quite clear, but basically Gabrielle Bashir said, you didn't call anyone to come and get you. You didn't ask the maintenance man if you could stay overnight. You know, Mr. Jones apparently went away and did some work for a bunch of hours when they first got to the property. And so Jay had time by himself. And Gabrielle Bashir said, you didn't say anything? You didn't call? And he said, no, he just denied it. He said, no, I didn't say anything. I didn't flag anybody. He was just spending time there. She said, you know, you were having fun, weren't you? You wanted to go to this property. It was, it was a fun time. And he was like, yeah, I guess at some point I was, I was having fun, yeah.

• 6:09Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. The defence has also challenged Jay's account of what's happened following dinner with Alan Jones. Now, we talked about in our second episode, how Alan Jones allegedly said to complainant Jay after dinner, have a shower, come back in a robe and nothing else. And in that episode, we talked about how complainant Jay says he put on some underpants as well after a shower, coming back out in that robe. And the defence says to Jay in this cross-examination, look, you've made a choice not to put on more clothes when going back into the living room after dinner. You know, you had clothes, you had the opportunity to to wear something else. You didn't, you didn't have to go back in a robe and just these underpants.

• 6:48Speaker 03

  Yes, and the question was from Gabrielle Bashir, you must have understood that this was some kind of suggestion of getting ready for sexual activity. And Jay said, yes. And so she was saying, you know, you must have understood if he's asking you allegedly to come back in a robe and nothing else, that that was a sign of sexual activity. And so he did push back and he said, well, yes, I did what he asked, but I also wore underwear. And he said that he did that as some sort of protection. And the way she was framing these questions, I was wondering whether or not she was going to end up denying it happened completely. And that was the case.

• 7:32Speaker 03

  While she framed these questions as, you know, you understood he was suggesting that you get naked under the robe, what she then said was, but actually, Jay, you're making all of this up, aren't you? You know, this is all fabricated. And he said, no, it's not. She said, you could have put your pants back on. He said, I could have. But then she said, actually, you know, none of this happened at all. So it's been an interesting line of questioning from Gabrielle Bashir, because she's both been questioning whether he remembers something, or saying it actually never happened at all.

• 8:05Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, and you know, this does get really confusing throughout the cross-examination, Isabel, because one of the tactics that, or one of the approaches that Gabrielle Bashir seems to be using here is comparing complainant Jay's evidence to what he said previously in statements. And I think the robe is one example of this that the defence has highlighted. How's, what's Gabrielle Bashir said here?

• 8:28Speaker 03

  Yeah, so Gabrielle Bashir at times has taken him back to his evidence that he said in his, in court, and also to what he gave in his initial police statement. And so she's taken him to his police statement and she said, you know, you were never in robes together on the couch. And he said, yes, we were. And she said, well, there's no description in your police statement about being in robes on the lounge. You know, are you prepared to accept that that never happened? And he says, no, it did happen. And one of the answers he gives at some point when he's being asked about this, this sort of line of questioning is, you're asking me more questions about something and I'm elaborating. You know, perhaps it wasn't in my police statement.

• 9:11Speaker 03

  But he says, but you're asking me a very specific thing now and I'm answering the question. You know, perhaps he didn't think to put that in his initial police statement. So that's sort of, that's the way Jay is explaining the difference between his statement and what he's saying in court. He's not saying it's different. He's just saying, in court, there's more information.

• 9:31Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, yeah, it's been interesting as he's kind of elaborated in those moments, because it does, it does feel uncomfortable. Yeah, we've got a lot of detail, as we talked about in an episode last week, of what unfolded in the bedroom at Alan Jones's property, what complainant Jay alleges unfolded in that room. And, you know, part of that is what Jay described as the wiggling of penises over the top of each other after Alan Jones has opened his robe. And then also lying on the bed and Alan Jones and complainant Jay masturbating themselves in that position. I thought the way that Gabrielle Bashir phrased this was quite interesting. You know, she talked about, you know, complainant Jay sitting on the bed, Alan Jones allegedly sitting on the bed as well.

• 10:14Stephen Stockwell?

  And then asking complainant Jay, well, look, so he invited, Alan Jones invited mutual masturbation and you obliged basically and lay down on the bed. And complainant Jay's saying, well, yeah, I just kind of wanted to get it over with.

• 10:29Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's, that was a tricky line of questioning, I suppose, just, just graphic content to listen to. But, and, and, you know, uncomfortable. But basically Gabrielle Bashir was saying, you know, you laid flat back on the bed. You know, this was a request allegedly from Alan Jones to do something and you engaged in masturbation. And she said, you claimed that you did that because you were completely frozen. Um. She said, you know, he's previously given evidence about being, you know, frozen in that moment. And that's why he'd gone along with these requests, or why he had, you know, not pushed Alan Jones away when Alan Jones has allegedly touched him.

• 11:14Speaker 03

  He said, well, I was frozen, you know, I was scared. And she said, so you were frozen, yet you masturbated. Um. And he said, I was, I was very scared. I thought I had to do that to have it all stop. Um. And she really pushed him on that point of not being able to do, you know, not being able to be frozen and then, and then masturbate. And he sort of pushed back and said, no, you know, I, I was young in the head, he said, I was scared. Um. She said, but you're an athlete, you know, it's, and he said, it's a very different situation. Um. You know, I, it was, yes, there's a physical strength that he had. Um. And she said, you could have walked out. Uh. And he said, you know, I could have, but, but I didn't because I was scared. And I thought

• 11:59Speaker 03

  the quickest way to get something done, to get this, you know, alleged act done was to do it myself. And he, he spoke earlier in the court about just wanting to have a shower and, and essentially move on and get out of there.

• 12:10Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, Isabel, it was interesting, Gabrielle Bishir talking about this moment in court. And when we spoke about this, you know, we left out a lot of details around the descriptions that Complainant Jay gave of Alan Jones's body, basically. And in this point in the cross-examination, Gabrielle Bishir kind of pointing out to Jay, look, you've given these details of Alan Jones's body, of his genitalia, purely as a way to kind of embarrass him, to ridicule him.

• 12:37Speaker 03

  Um. She said, you know, him having this particular characteristic, uh, you know, mentioning that in court is trying to humiliate him. And he said, no. And then she said, well, you wouldn't know, would you? Because you've never seen Mr. Jones's genitalia. And he said, yes, I have. Um. And then, you know, said that he was guessing about this particular characteristic that he, that he mentioned in court, that he was, it was a guess because he'd never seen it.

• 13:03Stephen Stockwell?

  Hmm.

• 13:04Speaker 03

  Um. And, you know, he denied it and said, no, I have, I have seen it. Um. And I'm not trying to humiliate him, essentially.

• 13:12Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. Uh. This wasn't Complainant Jay's only visit to Fitzroy Falls. He has told the court that, uh, he visited Alan Jones's property to Fitzroy Falls, at Fitzroy Falls, on this occasion that we've been just talking through here, but also on a separate occasion again. And the defence kind of seized on the second visit, asking him, why would you go back to this property after what has happened last time? What explanation did Jay give?

• 13:36Speaker 03

  Well, he said because his family went, he felt more comfortable. Um. So this was a trip he's given evidence about that he said, um, I think his, uh, two of his brothers, uh, maybe his mum came along as well. Um. And so he felt like he wasn't the only person there. Um. He's given evidence that there were other people there, like other guests at the property as well. Um. He, he was saying that he also had been given this offer of a, of another car from Alan Jones. So initially, we heard that Alan Jones allegedly gave him, um, a car so that he could get to and from training. Eventually, that, um, car didn't work. And so he was offered this other car.

• 14:19Speaker 03

  Um. And Alan Jones had allegedly said to him, well, the car is at Fitzroy Falls. And he remembers, he says, Jay remembers he went to Fitzroy Falls, his family was there. And then he drove this car back, um, to, I think he said he was living in, um, Canberra at the time. So he drove the car away from the property. Gabrielle Bishir sort of pulled up the registration for this car and said, oh, no, this car was actually registered to your name some years later. And she said, are you sure you, you got the car in this particular visit? And he said, I'm sure I did. Perhaps the registration was changed into my name at a later date. He was very adamant. He was sure that he went back to the property at this one time. His family was there, so he felt more comfortable about it.

• 15:03Speaker 03

  And he says he drove away this little car, um, from the property that day.

• 15:08Stephen Stockwell?

  Isabel, we've spoken about Complainant Jay's messages to his ex about making a statement. We talked about them in our last episode. Um. Also, in, uh, court over the last couple of days, we've had the defence challenging, um, the timeline or what he has said to other people who have made statements. Now, we've heard that it seems as though his mother and his brother have made statements as well. And defence really questioning Jay on these conversations about what he's told them. Where are they going with this?

• 15:37Speaker 03

  Um. Well, they want to make sure that, um, Jay has not told his family members essentially too much about what's happened or anything at all because they have made statements to police. So Jay gave evidence under questioning that, you know, when he made this, um, initial complaint to police in 2024, after he'd seen Alan Jones be arrested, he went to police, he, he made his complaint. Uh. He says, police told him that he couldn't discuss the details of his complaint with his family, but he could tell his family the basic detail that he'd made a complaint and that they were to expect a call from police.

• 16:19Speaker 03

  Um, or, or some sort of contact to make a statement themselves. So Jay told police that he met his brother, um, at, at a McDonald's, uh, and under questioning, Gabrielle Bishir said, are you sure you didn't tell him anything? Are you sure you didn't give him any details? And he's, he said, no, I was really adamant about it. You know, I said, I can't tell you, um, you know, what's happened. He said his brother asked him, um, uh, but he said, you know, he asked him, well, what had happened or why hadn't you, why haven't you told me earlier about this? And he said, I can't tell you. I'll tell you when it's over. Um. And then there was also the question about what he'd said to his mother. So the court had heard and Jay told the court that he

• 17:05Speaker 03

  was watching TV with his mother and his mother obviously knew that he'd had this ongoing, you know, relationship, uh, friendship with Alan Jones. And she'd said, you know, did he do anything to you? And Jay says that he lied to his mother on that occasion. And he said, no, he didn't. Um. And then Jay says, this obviously came up again after, in 2024. And Jay said, no, I actually lied to you that first time. He did, he did. And, you know, I've made the complaint and then potentially police will contact you. And Gabrielle Bishir said, no, no, no, you know,

• 17:48Speaker 03

  you were telling her the truth that first time when you've said nothing happened. And then you lied to her. And it all got quite confusing for Jay and for us, to be honest. But essentially, you know, Jay was saying, I told her nothing happened and that was the lie. And, and Gabrielle Bishir said, no, no, no. When you told her nothing happened, that was the truth. And, yeah, we went round in circles a bit there. But Jay was insistent that, that he ended up telling his mother that something had happened.

• 18:16Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, yeah, it was a really confusing part of the cross-examination. And I think to me, really boiled down the confusion around so much of this cross-examination of Jay by Gabrielle Bishir, like, this is being done over a video link. So we have Complainant Jay sitting in a room somewhere else in the Downing Centre building. It got so confusing because Gabrielle Bishir is saying, you've lied. And then in Jay's, according to Jay's evidence, yes, he had lied, but he had lied the first time. And it just got, we were just going around and around in circles there for a moment. And I think even his honour was confused at one point.

• 18:49Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, it is, it is hard. There's a lot of double negatives and barristers ask questions in really long-winded ways sometimes. Um. You know, they're trying to touch every piece of evidence and sort of draw in the complainant. And, you know, the complainant is very rarely a lawyer, um, and doesn't think in the same way that barristers think in. And, yeah, even his honour, Glenn Walsh has at times sort of gone, I'm confused as well. Um. Or, you know, or he understood it and then he sort of helps. He jumps in and he says, now, wi- witness Jay, this is what is trying to be explained. And he sort of breaks the question down and we get there in the end. But it is, it can be really confusing the way defence asks questions.

• 19:33Stephen Stockwell?

  We got there in the end. Uh. After almost an entire week in Complainant Jay, uh, we made it into, uh, re-examination. Um. Are we almost done with Complainant Jay now, Isabel?

• 19:43Speaker 03

  Uh, we are almost done, um, very nearly at the end, but we are in re-examination. So this is, you know, an opportunity for anything that came up in cross-examination that the Crown, I guess, isn't happy with, where they feel like something was left murky and they want to clarify. They get to re-ask questions. And it's usually a lot quicker. It's sort of going through a few points. Now, you said this, you meant this sort of, did you mean this? And the witness would say, yes. Um. One of the big, I guess, points that the Crown wanted to ram home was this questioning under cross-examination of why Jay didn't push Alan Jones away, didn't ever, you know,

• 20:25Speaker 03

  you know, physically get rid of him, ever tell him off. And, you know, the line of questioning from the cross-examination was, well, you're an athlete, aren't you? You're physically big enough. And the Crown said, well, yes, you know, you are physically big enough, but why didn't you ever push Alan Jones away? And Jay said, look, I was, I was very scared. And I wasn't physically scared. He said, I was mentally very scared. And he said, I was scared that if I said no, or if I pushed him off, I would lose everything. I would lose the payments. I wouldn't have a good life. I would probably lose the car. And he also was asked about, in his cross-examination, he talked about,

• 21:10Speaker 03

  worried about repercussions if he didn't do what Alan Jones was allegedly asking him to do. And the Crown said, what did you mean by repercussions? And he said, I thought I'd lose everything. You know, I'd get smashed in court. He's a powerful man. And he said, I thought that no one would believe me if I told anyone anyway. So that was his sort of, yeah, I guess, an explanation that we've been waiting to hear in a way, you know, how he felt allegedly about this at the time. You know, it was a relationship where he felt scared, not physically, as he said, but mentally. And he was getting money from

• 21:50Speaker 03

  Alan Jones. He was a person who had not a lot of money. He at times had 23 cents in his bank account, as we have heard. This was, Alan Jones was a way for him to be able to keep getting an income, be able to train for his sport. And he, he admits he wanted the money to continue.

• 22:10Stephen Stockwell?

  Thank you, Isabel. Yeah, I appreciate the insight into, you know, not just the cross-examination, but the re-examination as well, and some of those clarifications too. Now, we are getting a heap of questions through to [email protected]. I really appreciate all of your questions, your insights. And Isabel, I want to start with one today from James. James has been discussing complainant Jay with a few friends, he says, and they're struggling a bit to understand what is potentially illegal here. Could you help us understand?

• 22:37Speaker 03

  Yes. So what is illegal, allegedly, is the issue of consent. So, you know, sexual acts, if you have consent, are not illegal. But in this case, what the issue is, is that the six complainants say that Alan Jones has touched them or kissed them without their consent. And so at the end of, a lot of the time, in the Crown examination, they would get to an end of describing a particular incident, an alleged kiss, and the Crown would say, and, and did you give consent for Alan Jones to do this? And complainant

• 23:16Speaker 03

  Jay would say, no. So that is the issue, that there is no consent from Jay. He says that he didn't want this to happen. And so that is why Alan Jones has been charged, and that is why we are covering this trial.

• 23:30Stephen Stockwell?

  That's it. Thank you, Isabel. Thank you, James, for that question as well. I would never want anyone to think that there's not a question they could send to us. And that one was a, I think, a really wonderful opportunity to help us clarify what this trial is about. So really appreciate you getting in touch with that one, James. Isabel, another one here from Elizabeth. And this is one I've been, something I've been thinking about a lot as well. Elizabeth is actually quite troubled by the defence's questioning of complainant Jay. According to Elizabeth, it seems to tick every box of the stereotype of the way women have been questioned that we've moved away from. Is this type of victim blaming questioning really acceptable?

• 24:04Speaker 03

  Look, this is the really uncomfortable thing about criminal trials, is that a defence's job is to ask some very uncomfortable questions of a complainant. The defence has to pick apart what they say are inconsistencies in someone's argument. Given that consent is an issue, as we've discussed, the defence has to suggest, you know, that maybe there was consent. The defence has to say that something was made up. The defence is trying to poke holes in the argument and find ways around it and, you know, defend their client. And their client is someone who has pled not guilty to all of this. Alan Jones says

• 24:47Speaker 03

  none of this ever happened. And so it's the defence's job to essentially try and prove the point that it never happened. It's the Crown's job to prove the point that it did. And so it is uncomfortable. That is unfortunately what has to be done in a criminal trial like this.

• 25:06Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, yeah, I will second that. It is, I feel incredibly uncomfortable in the courtroom as these questions are being asked. But that said, there have been some timelines, there's been details that have been clarified through this process of the defence challenges to complainant Jay. So this is how a criminal trial works. One of the things that I've been thinking about a lot is that, you know, it's up for you to decide if this is the way that you want your justice system working. If this is something that you're not happy with the way it's going, then, you know, we live in a democracy and there's ways and means by which we can air our concerns. So if these are things that you're not comfortable with, this is just the way that it works. So, well, something that we will be discussing, Isabel, I don't know if you realise this yet, but this, this type of question, cross-examination,

• 25:50Stephen Stockwell?

  something I'm very keen to talk about more in our post-trial episodes when we have a bit more freedom.

• 25:53Speaker 03

  Okay, noted.

• 25:54Stephen Stockwell?

  Getting far ahead of ourselves at this point here. Isabel, one final question that's been sent to [email protected] that I want to talk about today. We have had much more, many more emails than this, but this is just the last one I want to hit. This is one from Josie. She is wondering why we're referring to Alan Jones by both names, both Alan and Jones. She says, it seems more normal to drop to the last name, as she's seen when she's been reading the papers. She's wondering if we have a specific reason for using both names.

• 26:20Speaker 03

  No, other than the ABC's style is not to drop an honorific or a first name until someone is convicted. So if a person is convicted of a crime, the ABC's style is to drop their first name, and they're not, they wouldn't be Mr X, they would just be X. While a trial is going and a person has not been convicted of anything, they get an honorific, Mr, or they get their first name. I think we say Alan Jones a lot in broadcast, and that's my training, just because it's clear. In digital, in Britain, we will say Alan Jones once, and then we'll say Mr Jones. I am talking, therefore this is broadcast, so my brain goes into broadcast mode, which is saying Alan and Jones.

• 27:05Stephen Stockwell?

  Thank you, Isabel. I also would like to just be clear when we're talking about, you know, Alan Jones. You know, if we say Mr Jones, you can probably assume that it's Alan Jones in this instance, but we do like to try and be as, as clear as possible as we're going throughout this. If you have any questions yourself that you'd like us to answer on the pod, you can send us an email, [email protected]. That's the best place to reach us. And we're very interested in all of your insights and your questions. You know, there's often things we don't think about that prompt really wonderful discussions. So if there's something you're not sure about, there's something we can clarify, please get in touch and send us an email, [email protected] is where you can find us. Isabel, there's still more to unfold in this trial. We're a week into a trial that's expected to run for quite some time. Where are we off to next?

• 27:50Speaker 03

  There will be witnesses related to Jay, so family, friends, people who are related to that specific case. Then we are supposedly going to hear from complainant C. Then their related witnesses, apparently could be 20. And then potentially complainant F. So that's the first three complainants laid out. Could be weeks even getting to complainant F at this point.

• 28:14Stephen Stockwell?

  Thank you, Isabel. Yeah, look, plenty more to go in this trial. Interested in hearing the evidence from people related to complainant Jay's evidence. But then, as you say, there's plenty more witnesses coming for, for some of these complainants as well. So lots to discuss on the case of Alan Jones. We back in your feed on Thursday this week. Make sure you get around ABC Listen, the best place to listen to episodes of The Case Of. If you are using a separate podcast platform, you know, something that isn't ABC Listen, you will be forgiven if you leave us a rating or a review. Something like that might seem small, but it makes it much easier for other people to find us on some of those apps. So if you could do that, that'd be a wonderful favour. Also, if you feel like watching Isabel

• 28:57Stephen Stockwell?

  and I as well, you can now see videos on ABC Listen and also on YouTube. So there's a number of ways, a bevy of ways, you can get your case of fix.

• 29:13Stephen Stockwell?

  The Case of Alan Jones is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. This episode was reported by Isabel Rowe, presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our supervising producer is Greg Muller, and our executive producer is Claire Wallison. This episode was produced on the land of the Gadigal, and we're on tree people.