In reply to Donna xx.

Dear Donna xx, I am pleased to hear that you have positive feedback to report about the ex-CEO from your experiences. I am certain many others can report the same, although besides you and one other, I have not heard from these many others.

Hopefully the ex-CEO can now reflect on his management of AFFORD and this incident and understand with his capabilities that he could have responded to Merna’s incident in a responsible and caring way. Hopefully he might now understand the difference between the job description of managing an organisation where profits and performance of assets are paramount, as opposed to one where the safety and well-being of people with disabilities is the primary focus.

I can understand the ex-CEO’s focus say for examples in the capacity of managing a manufacturing corporation, or an advertising agency. His actions are not dissimilar to those constantly reported in the media about other executives, and more recently the iCARE matter where contrary to the belief of iCARE’s ex-CEO’s, the fund was not set up for his benefit but actually was set up for the benefit of injured workers who paid for this benefit each week on the back of it being an insurance scheme whereby the benefit was derived from care if and when they were injured in the workplace.

At the end of the day, the ex-CEO may have a plausible account of why he managed AFFORD in the particular way that he did. I would be pleased to hear from him.

The ex-CEO now also has a choice in how he manages the situation hereafter. Donna, if as you say, he was an upstanding man trying to get the best experience for staff and clients, he is still that man and he certainly has the opportunity to show this and deliver this care, plus provide a true account of what really happened.

I met with the ex-CEO on Wednesday, 7 August 2019 with the express view to bringing resolution to the matter as Ms Petrus just wanted to know what happened to her daughter. However he turned up to the meeting with an insurance lawyer. The ex-CEO and the insurance lawyer both conducted themselves in a manner I found extremely disappointing, they both were disingenuous, both had agendas and both displayed a willingness to distort the truth of the matter to support their agendas.

I am aware that Ms Petrus recently wrote to AFFORD seeking clarification of what the ex-CEO meant when he said words at that meeting of 7 August to the effect, “the (bathroom) door was closed in a split second”. The response she received back from AFFORD indicated that he, the ex-CEO could not remember saying that, see excerpt taken from a recent letter from AFFORD that Ms Petros kindly forwarded to me.

“To the best of his recollection, Mr Herald does not consider that he made any comments or statements to the effect that your daughter was left in the bathroom for a short period of time, let alone a “split second”. Further, he has no recollection of making any comments or statements that could reasonably be interpreted in the manner complained of.”

I find the above response lacking credibility and thus disingenuous. The reader should note that also present at the meeting of 7 August 2019 was the AFFORD insurance lawyer, Lucinda Lyons and his 2ic at the time, Ms Stephanie Forsyth.

If the ex-CEO could not recall making this statement about the door being closed in a split second, the response should have been something along the lines, “Mr Herald does not recollect making this statement and shall consult both his lawyer and Ms Forsyth who were present at the meeting to refresh his memory…..”.

It’s a very important point for many reasons and insofar Ms Petrus is concerned because I had just delivered information to her indicating that Merna was left unattended in the bath for a long time before she was checked, and the ex-CEO was using words intimating that it all happened very quickly and reasonably one could draw the conclusion from his statements that it was an unavoidable accident because it happened so quickly.

I put it out to the readers of this blog that I am of the view the ex-CEO alleges he now cannot recall saying that statement and did not seek clarification from anyone else at that meeting because a) he does not want anyone outside that meeting to know he said this, b) it was not a truthful account of what happened, and c) it caused a lot of pain and grief for Ms Petrus to hear this from him in the knowledge it was not a truthful account. There can be no disputing that 30-45 minutes is not a split second.

One can see where this is headed because I have not disclosed if I secretly recorded that meeting nor have I disclosed if anyone else was in fact at that café under my instructions at the time filming that meeting. After all, that’s what private investigators do.

Dear RH

Thanks for your input here RH. In all fairness it’s a valid question and one that I also asked when I received the photo some months back. Fortunately that photo was one in a series of photos released, and the rest of the photo’s indicated in all likelihood, that particular photograph is legitimate. The reader can make their own mind up about the photo.

But in saying that, you are dead right, I don’t know for sure that photo is from head office Minchinbury. I will try to investigate that photo and see if I can get a location from the metadata.

Dear Sneaky

You raise a valid point about hearsay. But I have only one thing to say about that.

Tony Johns
PI