Matt Nippert is keen to keep flogging the dead horse that is the Chisholm Inquiry. ¬†He asks four questions that he thinks are unanswered. No one outside the small selection on the Beltway could possibly care about this heading into the second 24 hours but…
Here at Whaleoil we are¬†particularly keen to help the infirm, bewildered and lazy so will answer them for Matty.
1. Who didn’t the Inquiry hear from?
Hong Kong-based blogger Cathy Odgers, ruled by Chisholm to have been part of a campaign to undermine Adam Feeley, was allowed to provide a “very detailed” written declaration in lieu of interview.
And former Hanover boss Mark Hotchin, despite his offer to talk from overseas via video link, was also not interviewed. At the time of the email the SFO was investigating Hanover, and the investigation was eventually dropped with no charges laid.
Cactus¬†provided a voluntary highly detailed 7,500 word statement to the Inquiry. ¬†She never at law even had to do that because she was never forced to appear at the Inquiry. ¬†Justice Chisholm accepted all of her¬†statement as evidence. ¬†The fact that Fran O’Sullivan called Justice Chisholm in her slag column¬†a “respected” High Court Judge should mean that his accepting of Cactus’ evidence should be the end of it. ¬†Cactus wasn’t called to the Inquiry formally for an interview most likely because O’Sullivan had already tainted the Inquiry with her vile attacks on three witnesses to it¬†as soon as she could reach a keyboard. ¬†Mark Hotchin wasn’t called to the Inquiry because Justice Chisholm already had all the information he needed to draw a conclusion. ¬†Along with Judith Collins he was completely exonerated in the Inquiry.
2. What information wasn’t considered?
“The absence of telephone records for Mr Slater’s calls is surprising given that both Ms Collins and Mr Slater confirmed that they phoned each other often,” Justice Chisholm said.
So here we have a journalist questioning a “respected” High Court Judge after the Judge has gone to the effort of conducting a very extensive Inquiry, breached ¬†privacy to gain evidence and Nippert¬†thinks that this isn’t good enough after 99 pages? ¬†If Justice Chisholm was unhappy with the evidence he obtained then he damn well would have asked for more. He wasn’t the sort of man who would have held back and the painful length of his interviews proved that. ¬†The¬†Inquiry was already intrusive enough anyone staying awake long enough to read the report should see that. ¬†¬† Read more »