Notice: Undefined index: mosConfig_live_site in /websites/ge/geoffreyedelsten.com.au/templates/tlt-v2-content/index.php on line 27
 
Staff
Prof Dr Geoffrey Edelsten Logo
A BIZARRE INCIDENT - STANDOVER MERCHANTS
click on image(s) to enlarge


Extortion, Harassment, and Death Threats

As a result of his successes and high profile Edelsten again became the target of criminals.

In 1984 Edelsten, and his then fiancée Leanne, were subject to extortion, intense and prolonged harassment, kidnap and death threats, and an attempt on their lives.

The events began with a phone call at midnight to Edelsten’s home demanding money be sent to Stephen William Evans at PO Box 76, Redfern, otherwise Edelsten would be killed.  Shortly thereafter a kidnap threat in the shape of a gun was placed in Leanne’s car.

On nearly every day over the next three weeks a new threat was perpetrated aimed to intimidate and harass and to extort money.  Several tons of gravel was dumped on the front lawn of Edelsten’s home followed by dead animal carcases, pornographic photos on which was superimposed Edelsten’s face, a pornographic photo was distributed to Edelsten’s staff and patients, fraudulent airfares were ordered, advertisements were placed in newspapers stating that Edelsten had ceased practice and had moved to Bangladesh, bullets were received in the mail with Edelsten’s name engraved upon them, and bullets were fired at the Edelstens in their home.

The police tracked Evans, a career criminal who also used the alias Ralph Raymond Rayche.  Whilst Evans initially managed to escape a trap laid for him, the police finally tracked him down and arrested him in Mildura.  Evans was prosecuted for his persecution of the Edelstens.

Evans was later further prosecuted for major Centrelink fraud resulting in a seven year prison sentence.

This foiled extortion and murder attempt by Evans was the causation and catalyst for all of Edelsten’s later difficulties.

The principal characters in this bizarre drama include Stephen William Evans (aka Ralph Raymond Rayche), Christopher Dale Flannery, Rex Beaver, corrupt NSW Police, and vindictive State and Federal identities.


Prof Dr Geoffrey Edelsten Life and Times
Stephen William Evans - Career Criminal
Stephen William Evans

(1)    Contrary to oft-repeated media error, Evans was never a patient of Dr Edelsten
(2)    Also known as Ralph Raymond Rayche
(3)    Habitual criminal and standover man
(4)    A thug, not a thinker
(5)    Set up by the police, but escapes trap set for him
(6)    Tracked down to Mildura and arrested
(7)    Prosecuted for his persecution of the Edelstens
(8)    Later prosecuted for major Centrelink fraud and sentenced to seven years
(9)    Is the subject of the later prosecution of Edelsten, but has no direct further role to play in this farce
(10)    Contrary to oft-repeated media distortion, Evans was not beaten up, physically chastised, or paddy-whacked.  Evans was not harmed in any way.


Christopher Dale Flannery

(a)    A patient of Dr Edelsten
(b)    Known to the police in Victoria but virtually unknown in NSW in 1984 where these events occurred.
(c)    Linked to Dr Edelsten when the police trawled  through Dr Edelsten’s patient records until they found a name that they knew
(d)    Was unable to confirm to the police that he was anything other than a patient of Dr Edelsten’s.  Denied all knowledge of any plot to paddy-whack Evans.
(e)    Following laser surgery on his forearms and wrists by Dr Edelsten, Flannery was unable to attend a Judge’s hearing on the date required.  Judge wasn’t prepared to postpone and Edelsten was cited for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice for carrying out the surgery and for providing a certificate attesting to Flannery’s inability to attend court on the date required.  The actual delay would have been minimal.
(f)    Supposedly linked to Edelsten by illegal and ambiguous audio recordings of mobile phone conversations made by Rex Beaver.  No telephone conversations between Edelsten and Flannery were ever recorded or ever occurred.
(g)    Flannery disappeared in about 1986 and is presumed deceased.  His reputation developed only after his disappearance.
(h)    Mrs K Flannery (widow of CD Flannery) testified on Edelsten’s behalf in 1991. See Appendix A below.


Rex Beaver

(1)    Supposedly a private individual
(2)    Recorded hundreds of hours of Edelsten’s private mobile phone conversations over a number of years in direct contravention of the Commonwealth of Australia Telecommunications Interception Act 1979, but never faced charges for these offences.
(3)    Beaver stalked Edelsten from hospitals to clinics and on social dates over many years
(4)    In 1986 Beaver selectively produces his illegally made recordings which are pounced on by the police
(5)    Nothing further known
(6)    Who funded him?  Who provided the state-of-the-art equipment?  Who paid his wages?  Who paid for the release of his recordings ?  Who protected him from prosecution ? Who wins – who loses ?
(7)    Was he linked to corrupt NSW police?  Was he linked to organised crime?    Did he have some sort of connection to intelligence? 
(8)    Beaver’s illegally recorded, and quite ambiguous, conversations dated 3/3/84 and 15/4/84 are to be deliberately miss-represented and are to become critical.


The Alleged Offences

All began when, in early 1984, Edelsten and his then fiancée Leanne (later wife), became the innocent targets of:-

(a)    An extortion attempt for a substantial amount of money, followed by
(b)    prolonged harassment,
(c)    kidnap and death threats,
(d)    an actual attempt to kill them both, and
(e)    a terror campaign concluding only upon the eventual arrest of the perpetrator, Evans, in Mildura.

The direct result of these events by Evans, and subsequent illegally recorded but inconclusive mobile phone conversations by Beaver, would be a highly controversial trial in which Edelsten was charged with soliciting Flannery to assault Evans.

In July 1990 Edelsten stood trial for soliciting Flannery to assault Evans and for conspiring to pervert the course of justice (i.e. the catch-all charge; the charge they charge someone with when they don’t have a charge to charge them with).

The trial proceeded on the basis of illegally recorded telephone conversations in 1984 as a result of the criminal activities of one Rex Beaver (who was never charged for his misdemeanours – why not ?).

The Telecommunications Interception Act (Commonwealth) was varied to allow the trial to proceed as it was realised by both State and Federal governments that there was no evidence to support the prosecution in the absence of the illegal telephone recordings of the conversations between Edelsten and Leanne (3/3/84), and between Edelsten and his receptionist (15/4/84).

Even with the admission of the recordings the media reported that there was a wrongful conviction.  Further detailed analysis of the evidence was undertaken by the retired Supreme Court Justice of Queensland Peter Connolly QC who concluded that the trial miscarried and that the jury was wrongly directed.

Edelsten was incarcerated for a year but strenuously maintained his innocence.  Primarily as a result of the pending prosecution his name was removed from the Medical Register in N.S.W. in 1988 (great anticipation) and, following his conviction and after his release, in Victoria in 1991.

It was and is widely believed that Edelsten was subject to a grave miscarriage of justice [see details below] in both the trial and the disbarments.

The reader should note that all media reports of these matters were superficial and sensationalised, are generally factually incorrect, and they continue to be regurgitated and misused by all sections of the media, including wikipeedonya.
 

The Tapes

In 1986, two years after the extortion attempt, and following the Sydney Swans experiment, tapes of Edelsten’s mobile phone conversations made by a private individual named Rex Beaver, who had recorded hundreds of hours of Edelsten’s private conversations over a number of years in breach of the law (Telecommunications Interception Act, 1979), surfaced.  It became evidence in later proceedings that Beaver had followed Edelsten from hospitals to clinics and on social dates over many years. 

The illegal tapes are causing legal ructions at both State and Federal level.

The NSW police want to use the contents of the illegally recorded tapes in evidence against Edelsten.  Edelsten was warned by Alderman Doug Sutherland, Lord Mayor of Sydney and a fellow director of the Sydney Swans, that Bob Hawke, the then Prime Minister of Australia, had called him to inform him that prosecution of Edelsten would be launched.  Edelsten had previously replaced Hawke as number 1 ticket holder of the Sydney Swans.

The Commonwealth begins enacting legislation to permit the one-time use of the illegal recordings as evidence.  The legislation is named the “Edelsten Amendment” to the Telecommunications Interception Act 1979.

The NSW police are quicker off the mark and gazump the Federals by three days.


The Trial

[Edelsten –    1.    I did not solicit (or anything else) Flannery (or anyone else) to assault (or anything
else) Evans (or anyone else).
        2.    I did not conspire to pervert the course of justice. (given the same medical
circumstances I would again provide an appropriate medical certificate for an ill
patient – including a wikipeedonya editor. The mere existence or otherwise of
pending legal proceedings has no bearing on the making of such a medical
decision, and would not have influenced my decision had I known about it).]

In 1988 Dr Geoffrey Edelsten was charged with, in 1984, soliciting Christopher Dale Flannery to assault Stephen William Evans and to conspire to pervert the course of justice.

Edelsten sought extensive legal advice from numerous QCs all of whom believed there was no case to answer.  The only evidence against him were the two illegally recorded mobile phone conversations which were ambiguous in the extreme and were capable of being readily construed in perfectly innocent ways, and should have been so construed if the presiding trial judge had done his job

Nothing had actually happened to Evans.  Evans was not beaten up.  Evans was not harmed in any way.  Evans had never been a patient of Edelsten’s.  Evans was the thug who had tried to extort, kidnap, and kill Edelsten in 1984.

Immediately prior to trial Edelsten’s barrister withdrew from the case causing a rush to find a replacement.  No adjournment was granted.  Unfortunately, the replacement barrister was never able to come up to full speed on all the facts surrounding the case.

In his 1990 trial Edelsten gave evidence that Flannery was only known to him as a patient, his reputation only became apparent after his disappearance, presumably murdered, in approximately 1986.  Edelsten further attested that he had never solicited or hired Flannery or anyone else to attack Evans.  Most observers and the media were expecting a rapid acquittal, but this was not to be the case.  Edelsten was found guilty on both counts and received six months for each count to be served consecutively (not concurrently).


Mr Connelly, QC

Following the trial new evidence became available (including that of Mrs K Flannery – widow of CD Flannery) and Mr. Connelly QC, a retired former Senior Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, was engaged by Edelsten to conduct an investigation of the trial and of the evidence, and to give his considered opinion.

Mr Connelly, QC concluded

“QUOTE”

1.    Dr Edelsten faced the jury as a professional man well known to be offside with his profession and a man with a flamboyant lifestyle.  Such men tend to receive little sympathy from judge or jury and it is essential to a fair trial that in such cases it be conducted strictly according to the law.

2.    The trial was marred by errors of law in that –

a.    the act required to be proved as the act solicited was not confined to assault;
b.    the direction in relation to circumstantial evidence was not adequate;
c.    the jury was invited to draw inferences of guilt from ambiguous words without a warning that they could only do so if those inferences were the only rational inferences that could be drawn.

3.    It was not open to the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the telephone conversation of 3/3/84 and 15/4/84.

4.    …The summing up of the learned judge when he told the jury that ...(A witness)… had more than a casual relationship with Dr Edelsten was in error.

5.    The only review at judicial level of the new evidence has been that of Finlay J (A retired Justice), who, with respect, misconceived his function…
…Any one who thought it capable of belief would have felt the requisite “unease” or “sense of disquiet”: Varley 1987 (8 NSW LR 30, 35, 48).  In rejecting it out of hand his Honour was really requiring doubt as to Dr Edelsten’s guilt to be shown to his own satisfaction which is, with respect, erroneous: Varley at 48.

“END QUOTE”

This should have resulted in the conviction being overturned.

Despite this learned opinion, new incontrovertible evidence, and general advice Edelsten was denied leave to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal.

In 1984, much of the evidence concerning Evans was unknown to Edelsten until Edelsten actually attended Evans’ criminal trial.  It was only then that Edelsten learned anything about Evans, even what he looked like.  Evans was in custody and was no longer a problem.  There was simply no reason for Edelsten to take matters/justice into his own hands.  Evans was being properly dealt with and any actions Edelsten might take could only assist Evans getting off; Edelsten could only be a loser.  It is inconceivable that Edelsten had anything to gain by attempting a non-legal action against Evans.  And Edelsten was a very legal person.

In 1990 it was not a part of the prosecution case that Flannery was hired, the alleged offence was described as soliciting (requesting or discussing).  Unfortunately, with Flannery’s disappearance, Edelsten had no corroborating evidence that their relationship was only a doctor/patient relationship.  However, this is moot, as the police had no admissions at all from Flannery to the contrary, and it is up to the police to prove their case.  Thus it all comes down to the admission into evidence of the illegally made recordings; which situation can never again arise following the Edelsten Amendment.

Significant misreporting of the facts and evidence has been repeated ad nauseum over the past 20 years by virtually all sections of the media with no report being accurate.  As usually happens in history, the oft-repeated lie overwhelms the once mentioned truth, and the lie becomes truth, and history is then based on the lie.  Current web-sites have now picked up on the old inaccurate, much repeated newspaper lies, missed the once mentioned truth, and now attest to the lies as being truth.  Web-sites can only be as accurate as the rubbish they’re touting; i.e.: not accurate at all.   And now wikipeedonya “cites” (sounds like an official term doesn’t it – perhaps it should be spelt as “sights”) these erroneous web-sites as truth.  Whereas, in actuality, the “truth” is known to only ONE person from those times – Edelsten – and he is the one person that wikipeedonya is not prepared to accept as truthful.  (Based on what – erroneous newspaper reports of course).


Aftershock

Edelsten then served his full time, was a model prisoner but, unlike nearly all others, received no remission for good behaviour.  He came out to a shattered life, left Sydney and moved back to Melbourne.

While inside, his ex-wife married one of his barristers.

Now it was the turn of VCAT in Victoria to have their pound of flesh followed by Medicare.  The Australian Taxation Office also took him on but the ATO came out of it with a bloodied nose.


The 1990s

In 1991 Edelsten was found to be suffering a large brain tumour (left Cavernous Sinus Schwannoma) and also required heart bypass surgery.  With an uncertain life expectancy he immersed himself in scholastic pursuits.   He was awarded a doctorate, 7 master’s degrees, and a further bachelor’s degree, along with several diplomas and certificates.

In 1997 Professor Vinko Dolenc, professor of neurosurgery on a visit to Australia to lecture Australian neurosurgeons, successfully operated and removed the tumour with few deleterious results.

New Medical Career

Edelsten sold off his Sydney practices in late 80’s and returned to Melbourne,

He then embarked upon a new medical career in 1999 by commencing one of the first DNA paternity testing services – Gene-e Pty Ltd.  In 2001 he commenced Victoria’s first 24 hour bulk-billing medical centre and this was followed by several others.  His success has resulted in his operating several of the largest clinics in Melbourne and consulting to other groups.

Edelsten’s inability to practice medicine as a result of the NSW Medical Tribunal’s (MT-NSW) decisions has proven no obstacle to his owning and operating medical centres.  Re-registration is a nicety only.  And as he’s operating outside their sphere of control they are of little consequence.  He understands the jealousy of his achievements by certain sections of the medical profession and forgives them for their petty revenge.  They have taken away his ability to practice as a medical doctor, but this does not change the fact that he qualified as a doctor, had a significant career as a doctor, and has and does put more into medicine and doctoring than many put in over several lifetimes.

Up till now, the main factor against Edelsten’s re-admittance has been his constant protestations of innocence.  Whilst Edelsten continues to assert his innocence the Medical Tribunal will continue to point to his failure to re-habilitate himself, citing as proof his assertions of innocence.  Stand-off Catch-22 style.  To be re-admitted Edelsten must admit guilt and agree to their terms.

In the meantime Edelsten will continue to achieve far more as a medical company owner than he ever did as a GP.

Edelsten’s ongoing mentoring and teaching of overseas trained doctors is continuing apace, and this is proving to be a most valuable contribution to the individual practitioners and to their clinics.
 



© Copyright 2007-2010 Prof Dr Geoffrey Edelsten & licensors. All rights reserved.