08 Alan Jones | What happened under the table?

Complainant C alleges Alan Jones touched him under the table at a Sydney lunch, in front of other guests. Now two of those lunch guests have given evidence. One describing Complainant C as looking "distraught", while the other said he didn't see anything worrying. Sydney reporter Isobel Roe recaps all the evidence, including former 2GB broadcaster Jason Morrison's account of the lunch, and we do an inbox deep dive to answer your most pressing questions about the trial. 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 You can find all episodes of The Case of Alan Jones here. https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/the-case-of/the-case-of-alan-jones/106995118

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

• 0:02Speaker 00

  Hi, I'm Emily from NewsTime. Are your kids super curious about what's happening in the world? Or maybe you're a primary school teacher looking for great classroom resources. NewsTime is a podcast full of kid-friendly news stories from Australia and around the world. NewsTime lands every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Follow or tap the heart in the Kids tab of the ABC Listen app to never miss an episode.

• 0:29Speaker 01

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

• 0:44Stephen Stockwell?

  Complainant C alleges Alan Jones touched him under the table at a public lunch while other diners laughed at him. And while one witness remembers seeing something, others have told the court a different story. I'm Stephen Stockwell, welcome to episode eight of the case of Alan Jones.

• 1:02Speaker 03

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

• 1:07Speaker 04

  Some people said that he was more powerful than the Prime Minister.

• 1:11Speaker 05

  There was an 83-year-old male arrested this morning. Detectives from the Child Abuse Squad turned up at Alan Jones' luxury apartment down there at Circular Quay.

• 1:20Speaker 03

  Following allegations that he indecently assaulted multiple young men.

• 1:24Speaker 06

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

• 1:31Stephen Stockwell?

  As the fourth week of Alan Jones' trial starts, we're hearing from witnesses who were at lunch where Alan Jones allegedly assaulted complainant C. One of them has told the court how he remembers thinking something really bad has happened at that lunch, while others say they don't really remember anything unusual. And with us to unpack it all is ABC Court reporter Isobel Rowe. Welcome Isabel.

• 1:53Speaker 07

  Lovely to be here as always, Stocky.

• 1:55Stephen Stockwell?

  A fair bit's gone on in the last couple of days. Can you wrap it up for us in 60 seconds or so?

• 2:00Speaker 07

  So we've started hearing from people who were at this lunch in 2008, where complainant C says Alan Jones sat next to him, asked him to sit next to him, and then allegedly touched him on the crotch for most of the lunch. And we've heard some different accounts of what happened there. From one witness, who says he saw C looking distraught, while Alan Jones had his hand under the table near C. And another witness, and a former 2GB staffer, has so far told the court about the jokes that people were making at this lunch, about the banter. But he says he didn't see anything that worried him.

• 2:41Stephen Stockwell?

  Thank you Isabel. We're going to spend most of this episode talking about this lunch. It's going to be through the eyes of other people who were there, not from complainant C. But before we dive into that, can you remind us a bit about what complainant C said happened at this lunch?

• 2:55Speaker 07

  So just to take us back a little quick recap, complainant C was about 40 years younger than Alan Jones. A former colleague of Alan Jones was working with him at the time of these allegations. It's alleged that Alan Jones touched C while driving at some points, kissed him in his Macquarie Street apartment lifts, kissed him in work lifts. And also, the final of these eight charges relating to C was supposedly touching him on the crotch, or Alan Jones allegedly resting his hand on C's crotch under a table for most of this lunch. Now, this whole episode, essentially, we will focus on this lunch,

• 3:35Speaker 07

  because that is where this case is going at the moment. What happened at this lunch, it was like a, it was a, not just a staff lunch, but described as a lunch that Alan Jones hosted. So there were people who he'd worked with, there were people from his personal life there. It was at a restaurant in Sydney, and it was a Christmas type of lunch. So that time of year, everyone was having, you know, food and drinks and sitting around the table with different people. What we've heard so far is that Alan Jones asked C to sit next to him. And we've heard in the court this week from a couple of different lunch

• 4:18Speaker 07

  guests who were there. The first lunch guest we heard from talked about noticing that people were laughing or reacting to something going on where Alan Jones and C were sitting. And this witness said he looked over and Alan Jones' left hand was under the table, and his other hand was swirling a glass of wine. And he says he thought C looked distraught. And then he said he later heard others saying to C outside this restaurant, something like, "You were copping a feel, weren't you?" And we've heard this from C's perspective

• 5:00Speaker 07

  as well. When he was giving evidence, he said he walked out of this restaurant, and some colleagues or lunch guests, he couldn't remember who exactly, said something to him like, "Oh, you were copping a feel under the table, weren't you? You liked that." And he said he remembered feeling really deeply embarrassed about it. And so this witness has given evidence that he also heard that comment that was made. And he told the court that he distinctly remembers thinking something bad has happened here at this lunch.

• 5:29Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, he also talks about how C looked devastated throughout some of this as well, and described C leaving the restaurant with Alan Jones, with Alan Jones as kind of patting him on the back and squeezing his neck, and mentioning that it looked like C almost kind of reared away from the touch of Alan Jones. This witness told the court that he never spoke to anyone about what happened either. He'd never spoken to anyone or told anyone about what he had seen in that. And then in the cross-examination drew a diagram of the lunch as well, and kind of pointed out where the various people were sitting, where Alan Jones and C were, where he was on that table as well. I am always interested in the kind of arts and crafts segments of courts and how they kind of extract some of

• 6:11Stephen Stockwell?

  that evidence and get an idea of kind of where people are. One of the things I found really interesting about this cross-examination, though, was the line of questioning around what this witness told journalist Kate McLeimont. Because this witness had spoken to Kate McLeimont when she was researching stories about Alan Jones, and was looking to kind of corroborate, I think, some of the things that she had been told. And one of the things that came up in this cross-examination was that this witness had never told her that he'd seen anything inappropriate. And this witness was clarifying and saying, "Well, look, I wasn't asked specifically about this instance. I was referring to other instances when I was asking those questions." And we also heard in that cross-examination about how this witness, after those stories were published, sent C messages as well, checked in on him, asked how he was going, all those things too.

• 6:54Speaker 07

  And yes, we have heard that C had spoken to Kate McLeimont. His allegations featured in her reporting. And as part of these proceedings, we're actually hearing some original interviews that Kate McLeimont did with some of these witnesses. Her own recordings that she made have been subpoenaed and handed up to the court.

• 7:18Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, yeah. One of the things that happens kind of early on in the day as well, just to sort of a peek through the courtroom curtain, is that there's this discussion about subpoenas. You know, one of the first things the judge will kind of work out with the parties, you know, so-and-so's subpoena been returned. It's happening less as the trial's going on. But I noticed certainly in the pre-trial, there's a lot of conversation about subpoenas and, you know, who they're for, you know, what media organisation, and a lot of conversation about subpoenas from Kate McLeimont. So that's obviously, you know, how these recordings are ended up in the, in the hands of the court as well. We've also heard from someone else at the lunch, Isabel. This is on Friday. This, this person talked through the people there, you know, describing, you know, kind of some radio people, some of Alan Jones' staff also present at that lunch. And he says he didn't see any inappropriate behaviour,

• 8:03Stephen Stockwell?

  nothing that he recalled being said either at that lunch. Very quick cross-examination as well of this witness. And actually, the quickest witness we'd had so far, Judge Glenn Walsh, commenting on Friday afternoon that we could use more like that witness to get through this trial. And then yesterday, Isabel, we've had another radio presenter, someone who used to fill in for Alan Jones, also at this lunch, also at this lunch, who's kind of told us what happened through, through his eyes.

• 8:33Speaker 07

  Yeah, so a different account again. It's funny, the lunch, while we've been talking about it at one particular place, and most people remember it at one particular restaurant, this witness remembers it at a second restaurant, or a different restaurant. And they were asked questions about, you know, whether or not it was, he thought it was one or the other. But I think witnesses seem to have been potentially confused, because they all have acknowledged that they've been to a couple of these lunches that Alan Jones has held at the end of the year. And so we haven't even agreed on where this lunch was. But the majority think it's at this one place. So this witness is Jason Morrison. He is

• 9:15Speaker 07

  a former colleague again of Alan Jones. He's someone who, he said, sort of was the fill-in person at the radio station. He at one point did three months of the 2GB breakfast show. He said he filled in on other shows. You and I are familiar with that sort of person in our own organisation. You know, it's not your show, but you know, you're the backup if someone's sick or away, or that sort of thing. He says he remembers this lunch specifically, and he insists it's this other restaurant. And he says he remembers these things, because it was the first time he was invited to a lunch with Alan Jones. And, you know, for him, he thought that was a big deal. He says he got there late because he was on air, which was just not something he could control. He says he remembers sitting down and Alan

• 10:00Speaker 07

  Jones sort of pointing at him and introducing him as the late Jason Morrison. And he was said he was sitting in the middle of the table, maybe slightly to one side, but opposite Alan Jones and C.

• 10:15Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. And, you know, we've talked about the kind of the looks back and forth from people at this table and C that C has described. Jason Morrison remembers these looks back and forth between, you know, kind of his end of the table and C. What did he describe, though?

• 10:33Speaker 07

  Yeah, so he described where he was sitting as the fun end of the table and where C was sitting as like the adult end or the boring end. And he talks about the banter being, you know, the fact that C was having to sit next to the boss and, you know, the boss was then sitting next to these other people who were not colleagues. They were people who he didn't know. And so he had to sort of, and we've all been at a dinner party like that, where you've got to talk to people you don't know as well, and your friends are actually at the other end. He described the situation as like that. And he said that there were a lot of people sort of poking fun and, you know, perhaps waving at him and making fun at him across the table. And he described C's demeanor as sort of

• 11:18Speaker 07

  smirking or smiling in response. And he believed that there was an understanding that what they were smirking and smiling at was that C was sort of having to sit next to Alan Jones and the people he knew were having fun down the other end of the table. He gave evidence as well that at one point during the lunch that he heard somebody say that C and Alan Jones looked like a great couple. But that was sort of the height of the banter that he was describing. The prosecution asked him several questions about what he heard,

• 12:00Speaker 07

  whether he heard any specific conversations. He did not give evidence that he heard this conversation about, oh, you were copying a feel, weren't you? He didn't mention it. He just said that the banter was, you know, blokey Christmas chat. He sort of said it was all in good humour. He said that he didn't see anything that worried him. At one point, he said Alan Jones had his arm around C and was sort of talking to someone else as you would, in a way, when you're talking about, like, he was talking about C to these other people. But he said that was about as much as he saw in terms of, you know, the interaction between them.

• 12:44Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah. Jason Morrison still giving evidence in chief. So Georgina Wright, the prosecutor, is asking him questions. The afternoon yesterday, Isabel, was kind of delayed by legal argument. Can we get into that at this point?

• 12:58Speaker 07

  We cannot. Hopefully, we can bring that to you at the end of his evidence. We don't want to prejudice the witness. There is no specific ban on us publishing it, but it's one of the, you know, the legal things that we would do is that we don't talk about lots of legal argument during a witness's evidence because they obviously have the ability to read it. So we won't do that, but hopefully we can explain it to you next time.

• 13:29Stephen Stockwell?

  Now, Isabel, the court isn't closed for the evidence of these witnesses like it is for the complainant, who are giving evidence in a closed court. At the moment, anyone can come in, they can hear the names of these witnesses as they're introduced and they're talking through all of this. But we haven't named them here. I mean, we've named Jason Morrison, we haven't named the other two people at the lunch. Can you explain why we're not naming these witnesses?

• 13:53Speaker 07

  Look, it's a tricky dance every day. The reason we've named Jason Morrison is because he's a bigger player in this story. He's come up previously and we decided that we were able to name him because they didn't believe it led anyone any closer to identifying the complainant than was, than the information already out there. The risk of naming too many people in relation to a complainant is that people could narrow it down and be able to identify the complainant. And that is obviously what we are absolutely trying to avoid. So we won't name everybody in relation to certain witnesses because it might

• 14:38Speaker 07

  become particularly obvious. You know, if you name someone's, you know, family member or whatever, then it narrows it down too much, essentially.

• 14:46Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. There was something interesting that happened in the morning break while Jason Morrison was giving evidence. His Honour, Glenn Walsh, will remind witnesses not to talk to anyone while they're giving evidence, not to read anything, not to get around the media, anything like that. That's sort of something that's happening quite regularly when someone's sent out the room for legal argument or for a break or whatever. Interesting note yesterday from His Honour, Glenn Walsh, though, as Jason Morrison left the room for the morning break, His Honour mentioned to him that he shouldn't listen to any podcasts during the morning break. Is His Honour listening to us?

• 15:22Speaker 07

  I don't know. Everyone looked at me. I mean, all the media looked at me at that point, as I am the girl with the podcast. Look, we would have been particularly impressive if we were able to get a podcast up about his morning evidence in the morning tea break, which is half an hour. We're good, but we're not that good. I think, I don't know if His Honour is listening, but I think he's very aware of the media coverage. He was very, very wary early on in this case about this becoming a trial by media. And he made comments about really being worried about the amount of media coverage there was. But then whenever he has been sort of drawn to the media coverage, he's always been quite complimentary. He's never said that there's anything wrong. So I think he's keeping, either him or someone

• 16:06Speaker 07

  else in the court is keeping like a working diary of what we're doing. And I have no doubt that if he had a real issue, he would bring it up. He doesn't seem to be backward in coming forward like that. But when he has brought it up, he's actually said he's not seen anything that's been of concern to him. So that's the good news. But yes, witnesses should not listen to the podcast during their evidence.

• 16:31Stephen Stockwell?

  Certainly not.

• 16:31Speaker 07

  Or any, or any media, no.

• 16:33Stephen Stockwell?

  Exactly, yeah. Just leave your curiosity at the door and just, you know, answer the questions being asked in court, as His Honour would say. I will say, you know, when I described His Honour cracking it last week over discussion of case conference notes, I thought about that over the weekend a lot. I was like, oh, God, was that a fair description of him? Well, he did leave the room and have to go and think about it. And then yesterday, when he mentioned a podcast, I thought, oh, God, he's listened and he's got thoughts on how I've described the goings on of the courtroom. So hopefully.

• 17:01Speaker 07

  I'd like to think he doesn't have enough time to listen to the full episodes. But hello, Your Honour, Judge Glenn Walsh, if you're listening.

• 17:08Stephen Stockwell?

  Yes, Your Honour, I appreciate the interest and the download from this. If you could tell your friends, we'd much appreciate it. Every share helps. Look, Isabel, I'd love to get some questions today and talk through that because the case of inbox is, is growing and growing and we're not getting to every single one in every episode. So I wanted to spend some time to go through them today. If you have a question you'd like us to answer, you can get in touch. [email protected] is where you can reach us. Thoughts, questions, any feedback, we really appreciate all of that. And I want to start with one from Scott in Perth. He has been thinking about how Alan Jones denies any of these incidents took place, any of these allegations took place. But the defence's questions are about specific

• 17:50Stephen Stockwell?

  elements of the alleged acts. You know, for example, why someone didn't stand in a certain way or do something at a certain point. And he's found these questions kind of weird if the defence is trying to show something didn't happen. Is he missing something?

• 18:04Speaker 07

  It is, it is so interesting and it's, I have thought a lot about this as well. Essentially, what is happening is that the defence is trying to expose inconsistencies or credibility issues with a witness. So yes, they're saying, you know, oh, but if you say this happened, why didn't you do this? Or why didn't you do that? It's not because they're saying it might have happened. It's that they're saying, you know, you've, you've concocted a bad story. And, you know, that doesn't make sense, essentially. So.

• 18:37Speaker 07

  It is difficult to comprehend, I think, from your reasonable person's point of view. You know, why doesn't they, why don't they just argue it never happened at all? Or he wasn't there or anything like that. But, you know, it's clear that Alan Jones knew these complainants. They had, you know, working or friendship relationships or whatever with, you know, with Jay and C. He can't deny he never met them or saw them, but, but he can, he defend himself in ways that go to the complainant's credibility. And their argument is that this complainant is making it up. And so they're, they're trying to poke holes in, in the story.

• 19:17Speaker 07

  And so, yeah, that is, that is the way that they are able to defend themselves.

• 19:23Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, thank you, Isabel. Thank you, Scott, as well. And also Cam, and actually a number of other people have asked this question, um, kind of, kind of wondering how this actually all fits together and how it works. So I appreciate you talking through all of that. I'm always really interested in the, the kind of defence strategy throughout this as well. I mean, there's going to be so much that we don't understand about the way that the defence is approaching a case until we get to the closing arguments. And you'll hear a closing argument and think, oh, that's why they asked this question.

• 19:49Speaker 07

  It sort of wraps it all up and makes it all, makes sense, yeah.

• 19:51Stephen Stockwell?

  Exactly, yeah. Another one here from Georgia Isabel. This is also a question about the, the angle of the defence team. Georgia's noting that Alan Jones denies anything happened. And she's wondering how that, these allegations can be denied if there's evidence of the text between C and Alan Jones of this sort of sexual nature. How can the defence argue those two points at the same time?

• 20:14Speaker 07

  Hmm, well, it's because two things can be true. It can be that there were these sexual texts between them and they are printed out and handed up to the court for people to see. They're not disputed. C has sent texts to Alan Jones, which have been, you know, in his words, embarrassing. And he, you know, wishes he didn't do it, but have been sort of flirty in nature. Alan Jones has sent messages which have been sexual in nature. But Alan Jones is saying he still never touched C or he never kissed C.

• 20:50Speaker 07

  The defence is, that is their argument. Yes, that there were these, you know, flirty or sexual texts, but no, the offending did not happen.

• 21:00Speaker 07

  It's as simple as that. They, they are saying that, that two things can be true, that you can have a sexual texting relationship, I guess, and, and nothing happened in real life.

• 21:08Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, thank you, Isabel. Thank you, Georgia, as well. Actually, a follow on question from Georgia Isabel. Will Alan Jones give evidence himself?

• 21:16Speaker 07

  That is the million dollar question. We, he doesn't have to. No, no defendant has to give evidence. And there is no negative inference if they don't. That's the, how the law works.

• 21:29Speaker 07

  We have no idea. One day he might, one day it might finish and he never did.

• 21:34Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, we're getting plenty of that question sent through to the inbox as well. So I appreciate you answering that one and crossing it off the list. One here from Olivia that is a really interesting one. It's one that I've had in a few of our episode notes. I haven't quite had the time to dive into yet, so I'm glad we can get into it today. Olivia's really interested in how the prosecution has connected the complainants if they didn't know each other. Did someone contact a lawyer and then the lawyer tracked down the rest? How did this work?

• 22:00Speaker 07

  Hmm, not quite. So we've heard from the, in the words of at least two complainants about how they first contacted police. And, you know, everyone, it seems, went to police at different stages. We know that C spoke to journalist Kate McLeimont. So that was the first, it was, it was journalist. And we'd also heard that, you know, Peter Fitzsimons was also writing about Alan Jones or trying to write about Alan Jones at the time. So it was journalists that he first spoke to. And then those articles were published and then C made a complaint to police after that.

• 22:44Speaker 07

  We also know that Jay, who we first heard from, went to police after Alan Jones's arrest. So he was arrested on other charges. Jay remembers seeing that on the news and decided that he would go and make his complaint to police, you know, in the next couple of days, essentially. And then I think we've heard a little bit about how the other complainants have first made their complaints.

• 23:10Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, so I've got some notes from the opening sort of statement from the, from the prosecution, that complainant H had reached out to Kate McLeimont after one of the articles was published by her. M, complainant M also saw a Kate McLeimont article and told someone. And then complainant A contacted police after reading an article. But I do believe as well, complainant A actually made a complaint or a statement to police in 2018, but didn't take any action at that point as well. I'm not entirely sure, just from that, exactly how the other complaints that have contacted Kate McLeimont have kind of flowed through to the complainants, to the complaints to police. I'm not sure about complainant F. I either didn't get notes or that wasn't mentioned in the prosecution opening, so.

• 23:55Speaker 07

  Yeah, but it's, it does seem like the stories in the Sydney Morning Herald were the biggest source of, you know, inspiration for people to either speak to Kate McLeimont, then go to police, or, you know, they saw the article and then they went to police.

• 24:10Stephen Stockwell?

  Hmm, yeah, yeah, that's how this seems to be kind of flowing out, Olivia. So hopefully that helps, you know, kind of put that together in your mind. Isabel, thank you so much for, for talking us through that. Speaking of the complainants, Isabel, Wombat has written in, how do they choose the order the complainants appear?

• 24:25Speaker 07

  We don't know. I mean, the prosecution chooses the order.

• 24:31Speaker 07

  It's, I suspect it's a lot to do with people's availability. You know, perhaps it's to do with the size of the complaint, like their charges. So Jay had the most number of charges. It was sort of the most significant of complainants, I would say. He started off. C is potentially the next biggest, most significant, because there's eight charges. The complainants from here have a smaller number of charges. So perhaps they're starting with the, like, the larger, meatier end and going to the ends where people have fewer charges. But we, we don't have any insight into why they do the way that they do. And things change all the time.

• 25:12Speaker 07

  They, you know, complainants, I suspect, and, and other witnesses are told to be ready for a certain day and then they don't get called. There's a lot of things that can change and witnesses that, you know, and, you know, legal argument that appears and everything's thrown out the window, yeah.

• 25:28Stephen Stockwell?

  Everything slows down dramatically. So, yeah, well, thank you for explaining that one to us, Isabel. Appreciate that. And thank you for the email as well, Wombat. It's nice to be able to kind of break this stuff down. Catherine, listening from Spain, is, is wondering, is this judge the same man who defended convicted murderer, Chris Dawson?

• 25:46Speaker 07

  No, similar. The Chris Dawson's lawyer was Greg Walsh and this is Glenn Walsh. So very different. And yes, as Judge Glenn Walsh consistently points out, he's been doing this for 17 years. So he couldn't have been defending Chris Dawson because he has been sitting on the bench as a formerly known as a magistrate, now a judge in the local court.

• 26:13Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Isabel. Wonderful question as well, Catherine. So thank you for that. And speaking of our kind of podcast fans, someone has noticed a similarity in your voice, Isabel. Alex has been listening to a different podcast series at the moment and have noticed a voice actor in that with a very similar voice to your own Isabel. Alex's ears deceiving them? Or are you cheating on me with another podcast?

• 26:40Speaker 07

  No, I would never. No, I'm not doing another podcast. My claim to fame is sometimes I do the warnings at the end of the Four Corners episodes and at the beginning, saying that there's coarse language. So that's about as much voice acting as I'm doing. Do not have time to do another podcast, although that would be lovely one day.

• 26:58Stephen Stockwell?

  I will say I'm not the jealous type. So if you do want to work and do something on another podcast, that is totally fine. Eagle eyed listeners or viewers, I suppose, of other ABC content may have noticed you in the, the introduction of the Media Watch episodes at the moment as well, the little montage. There's a moment outside the Downing Centre that you feature in there, which is quite nice. We also have had a lot of emails as well, I will say, about how the complainants say they reacted to the alleged abuse from Alan Jones. I've actually learnt quite a lot from some of these emails, but unfortunately this isn't something we can get into at this stage of the trial. This isn't something that has been presented as evidence. And we can't really get into the commentary around the way the evidence is presented and

• 27:41Stephen Stockwell?

  start talking about kind of other research, other things that haven't come up in court yet as well. So I'm looking forward to unpacking that and talking more with you about that, Isabel, when we get to our post-trial episodes of the end of the case of Alan Jones. Thank you so much for taking us through all of this, Isabel. Very much appreciated. If you have any questions yourself, you can get in touch. [email protected] is our email address. Always looking forward to any thoughts, questions, reflections. If there's something you don't understand about the way this trial is working, please get in touch and we will fill in that gap so you can follow along with your whole heart. Isabel, where are we off to next?

• 28:17Speaker 07

  We are going to hear more potentially from Jason Morrison. If the legal argument that is happening goes in a particular way, yes, or potentially not. We will also hear more from the witnesses relating to complainant C. And we understand there are quite a few to go.

• 28:34Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, we'll be back in your feed on Thursday to unpack all of those witnesses, bring you the latest in the case of Alan Jones. Make sure you get yourself around ABC, listen, the best place to listen to The Case of and all sorts of wonderful other ABC content as well. There's, there's heaps there. There's no ads. There's really no reason to, to not get around it. If you are using another podcast platform that does play you ads, I will say, you can just leave us a rating and a review there and it'll make it easy for other people to find us. Tell your friends and family as well and we'll be back in your feed on Thursday.

• 29:12Stephen Stockwell?

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