The post Make that change – Part VIII appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

Last updated  ******  30 June 2021 ******

Yesterday, Tanya received notification that the police have concluded their investigations. The findings were that no criminal charges would be laid.

Although officially my services were not required many months ago, I elected to maintain a blog covering the matter as it progressed because I felt it was important to me, as a proud and patriotic Australian, to do something.

Initially in the matter, after reading information posted on the AFFORD website, I was of the view that a non-for-profit organisation providing care services for disabled people, after suffering a tragic incident would indeed be caring and therefore be forthcoming to meet up to resolve the matter in an honest and open manner and work in harmony with me, the police and the regulators. Despite my best intentions, AFFORD elected to deal with the matter differently.

I was not prepared to sit back watching AFFORD, a large multi-million dollar organisation with huge resources team up with their lawyers Clyde and Co, an even larger multi-million dollar organisation with even greater resources, attempting to sweep under the carpet the death of an innocent young woman with disabilities. She deserved better, especially from the very people who were entrusted, and paid 6 figure sums to look after her for her mum, so that her mum being a single mother of 6 children could go to work to provide for them.

In this Part VII of the Merna Aprem blog, I will be providing a bullet point summary of the matter.

I will also show how the 3 main parties deal with the matter from hereon, with the 3 main parties being;

1.       Steven Herald CEO of AFFORD

2.        Lucinda Lyons and Peter James Beard of Clyde and Co

3.        Tanya Petrus representing her deceased daughter Merna Aprem.

****** Update – Thursday, 27 August 2020 ******

Actions speak louder than words, and in the care industry this statement could not be more apt.

Although I have covered the following topic earlier in the blog, it’s worth covering again for very important reasons.

Working as a private investigator is a completely different role than investigating for other entities such as the police department and regulatory bodies. Timing is important as with the sequence of events in many cases, including what action was taken after the incident. Therefore I always take particular note of examining what happened after the incident, ie what did they do? I’ve interviewed many people who cannot explain why they did not report the matter to the police when it happened, or seek medical treatment when they were allegedly seriously injured. The response to an incident is critical.

To give some examples, if your home was invaded by masked thugs last night, there must be a reason why the police were not called. Another classic example is the case where a person who is suing for damages was allegedly seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, so much so that they can never work again, but immediately after the accident they drove home and later went shopping. There must be a reason why they did not seek medical treatment.

In this serious case where we have the death of an innocent and disabled young woman, I’ve been very carefully observing AFFORD to see what was done after the incident.

Shortly after carers left Merna unattended and she drowned in an AFFORD bathtub, AFFORD  told the AAP crime reporter, Perry Duffin, that they would continue to support Tanya and the following statement was published in newspapers all over the country.

“The company that runs the group home, Afford, told AAP they will continue to support Ms Petrus following her daughter’s death. They have hired an external investigator to determine what happened.”

The awful truth here is that statement is false and misleading. There has been zero support delivered to Tanya by AFFORD. They had a golden opportunity to prove that they really do care and instead proved that they don’t care.

Let’s not forget that the other statements made to AAP crime reporter Perry Duffin were also false.

It is my view that the above statement of support was only made with the calculated and untenable intention to capitalise on the media coverage of the death. I believe the view here by AFFORD was twofold. Firstly they set out with that statement to maintain an image in the public eye that AFFORD cares and at the same time with that very same statement set out to nullify any bad press from the drowning.  The choice was made to capitalise on the publicity of the death by fooling the public as to the true facts of the matter. They were only worried about the potential loss of business.

It was evident from my observations of the sequence of events post the incident, the carers did not call emergency services first, they called AFFORD management. My information indicated that AFFORD management arrived at the scene before the police and emergency services.

Next point of action we see fabricated statements made to the press to protect the AFFORD brand name. The statements were not factual, and they conveyed false information to the public who were reading the newspaper reports that could reasonably be accepted as being truthful. AFFORD chose to protect their reputation in a disingenuous manner.

AFFORD management also chose to totally disregard their pledge to provide support to Tanya which confirms their intentions to support their brand name rather than Tanya. In other words, the business that provides care services, and widely advertises their care services as being the very best, didn’t care for Tanya.

AFFORD was attempting to capitalise in the media on the death of one of their clients whom they should have been looking after but didn’t even though they promised to do this. The reality of the situation here is that had AFFORD been truthful, they would have told the AAP reporter a completely different story, and they would have provided much needed support to Tanya.

I am certain that AFFORD did not anticipate that social media can act against them too, and I am certain AFFORD is worried by the simple fact of exposing the truth of the matter on this blog.

It’s actually good for business when an organisation providing care services is seen publicly to be caring for someone suffering a huge tragedy. The care should be bountiful. AFFORD know this all too well and that’s why they made those statements to the AAP reporter, to be seen to care.

On the other hand if AFFORD was exposed  for not providing any support whatsoever to Tanya, even though they publically promised the support, not surprisingly it could be bad for business. The consequences of their own actions. I call it Karma.

I spoke with Tanya today and she confirmed that that she has received no support whatsoever from AFFORD to date.

It’s very disappointing that an organisation that is allegedly in the business of selling care has not reached out and bent over backwards attempting to provide support for Tanya. The very reason why Tanya put Merna into full-time care was so she could work and provide for her 6 children, being a single mum with little to no financial support. Merna could not be left alone while Tanya worked and there was no sensible alternative other than to put Merna into full-time care. She had no choice.

The theme and title for this part of the blog is “Let the battle begin”. Although Tanya is one of the parties in this battle, her battle actually began on the day Merna drowned in the AFFORD bathtub. Not only was her life shattered beyond comprehension, so were her plans to work and provide for her 6 children.

Tanya still has to cook, clean, wash, iron, shop, do the lawn mowing and maintenance, and all the many other laborious tasks for 5 other children she has in her care. If ever there was a tale of a woman with a huge struggle and broad shoulders, this is it. On top of all this she does not know how to keep going. The physical and mental strain is overwhelming.

Every minute of every day, including the many hours Tanya does not sleep each night, is an enormous struggle.  Sleep is not rest, it is nightmare after nightmare. Tanya needs help and the very organisation that promised to support her, the ones who were negligent here, are nowhere to be found. They have not provided her with any support.

It’s actually unbelievable that an organisation in the business of selling care, with huge resources and millions of dollars of funding has not provided any support whatsoever to Tanya. Sure we all know, if you read the papers, that AFFORD offered the support but they did not deliver it in any shape or form.  Shame, shame, shame.

As far as I am aware AFFORD has at their disposal – carers, cleaners, gardeners, pshycologists,  cooks, secretaries, vehicles, drivers, and a whole host of other services that they could reach out with to support Tanya.  

AFFORD could easily have reached out to Tanya and apologised for what happened to her daughter whilst she was in their care. They could have sent flowers, food, and sat down with her to discuss how best they could help her, but they didn’t.

However they did increase their pay by 3.5 %!

So far we have looked at what AFFORD hasn’t done, so let’s take a brief look at some of the things that AFFORD has done,

·               Pressured employees to sign confidentiality agreements so they cannot talk to anyone about the incident.

·               The door knob and door were replaced on the bathroom where Merna drowned.

·               The bathtub was removed.

·               Changed the door knobs in many homes despite them allegedly already being 100% fully compliant with regulations.

·               Made false reports in the media

·               Continued to employ the carer who left Merna unattended in the bathtub

·               Sacked Merna’s primary carer for sharing a link to this blog by monitoring her FaceBook

·               Met with Tanya and provided her with a false account of the events that led to her daughter drowning in an AFFORD bathtub.

·               Engaged Mr Peter James Beard of Clyde and Co to prepare a brief of evidence to mount a defamation case against me.

Hence the title of part VII of the blog should correctly read, “BRING IT ON”.

I am certain the CEO’s brief mandates that he must hold the safety of AFFORD clients and employees over and above every other consideration. Client and employee safety must be top priority. However, my observations have indicated this is not the case at all. AFFORD’s response to this tragedy and my observations of the systems in place have confirmed this.

It is fair to say, if you were going to make a comparison of the systems within an organisation with regards to efficiency and priority, the systems deployed to ensure client safety must take first place. However this is not what I observed was the case at AFFORD. Economic concerns were the primary focus of operations and client safety took a back seat.

The systems used to monitor client safety pales by comparison to the robust surveillance system used to monitor economic concerns.  There is a clear mismatch.

AFFORD has a “Surveillance Policy”.

In stark contrast to the haphazard system used by AFFORD to monitor and manage the necessary paperwork on some of their sites, I found that a cutting edge surveillance system is deployed to monitor for economic security and economic safeguard via the Surveillance Policy.

I am able to report with accuracy the workings of the sophisticated monitoring system deployed by AFFORD to protect their economic concerns. For all the wrong reasons I am impressed with the extent AFFORD management have gone to implement a big brother surveillance system that is both formidable and robust. It is also labour intensive. Deploying a monitoring system like this would involve hours of ongoing work by the AFFORD executive management team and IT department.

The AFFORD IT department is tasked with monitoring IT systems, including computer, email and internet surveillance.

What this effectively means is that the IT department can use sophisticated software monitoring systems to monitor everything employees do on devices at the AFFORD premises or at home too. They can and do spy on emails, and whatever IT communications they so choose without any accountability for this. Staff and other employees also have their IT devices monitored checking for breaches of the many company policies and procedures, such as for instance; the social media policy.

There is evidence that the AFFORD executive team breached some company policies and procedures themselves without recourse or punishment. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suspect that the executive management team could also breach the surveillance policy too. In the absence of accountability here, there is nothing stopping them from breaching this policy or ever getting caught if they do.

The surveillance policy allows IT and HR at AFFORD to act as big brother when employees are using either AFFORD’s devices or AFFORD’s IT systems (emails etc) via their own device. However, I have observed that the surveillance monitoring of employees goes beyond that and extends to monitoring employees’ personal Facebook accounts and other personal social media platforms.

If anyone is interested in checking out what the rudimentary computer monitoring systems can do, check out Flexispy or Teramind. Software with similar features could be installed on any AFFORD device and the user will never know.

Not only does the surveillance policy give  AFFORD the green light to spy on employees, and monitor their computers and mobile phones, it also gives them the right to download the data from the device, including your browsing history. That device could be your mobile phone!

Other tools can surreptitiously mirror your screen activity without user knowledge and give AFFORD complete ability to remotely control the device too. If anyone is interested in finding out more about similar sorts of programs, check out AnyDesk to see what features it offers to give the reader an idea of the functionality.

AFFORD policy states that computer surveillance is intermittent but ongoing. My interpretation is that AFFORD will monitor when and where they deem fit to do so.

The surveillance policy also gives AFFORD the right to undelete emails and use them against an employee in the event they are suspected of breaching AFFORD’s policies and procedures. There is an interesting peculiarity I have been made aware of with AFFORD breaches in that the breaches of AFFORD policies and procedures only seems to apply to employees under executive management team level. That is, AFFORD executive management show a blind eye when an executive member of the team breaches policies and procedures that they so vehemently enforce. I have seen incidences of the executive management team making a number of serious breaches, and when these were brought to their attention, no action was taken.

I have also observed an incident where an employee at the coalface level had her personal Facebook page monitored by AFFORD’s HR department and then sacked for sharing a link to this blog! 

AFFORD staff at a day program centre have had to personally send out documentation to the parents of the many clients using that centre in order to have the necessary paperwork available on site. This paperwork requested included the Medication Management Plans and Epilepsy Management Plans.

The Surveillance Policy does not direct any resources to this very important aspect of client safety as far as I can see.

Information I have indicated that AFFORD also monitors ex-employees to see if they have breached agreements by taking clients with them! Monitoring is also conducted to check if anything, whether it is true or not, is revealed about the failings of AFFORD in the social media platforms.

Referring to “Part IV – Jobs for the Boys” in this very blog, we see another example of the AFFORD monitoring of employees. I will show a few excerpts below taken from this intercepted email communication. You can read the full email of course in Part IV.

Despite the high levels of penetration achieved with the surveillance powers mentioned above, it seems that is not enough. The AFFORD surveillance policy also gives AFFORD the right to use listening devices in cases where it is left up to the judgement of AFFORD.

So all in all we can see that AFFORD has a very powerful and intrusive surveillance system in place giving the AFFORD executive team the ability to conduct surveillance at a level not enjoyed by most law enforcement agencies around the world.

Putting it all together, what this all means is that AFFORD can give an employee a mobile phone, laptop or similar device and then secretly (and easily) turn on the microphone, or camera, or video camera without the user being aware and remotely monitor whenever they want.   This is extremely powerful and intrusive stuff here and if used in conjunction with virtual machines (eg VirtualBox, VMware) and PowerShell, is untraceable!  This level of intrusion can also easily be achieved if the employee is using their own device.

This in a nutshell is the sophisticated surveillance system deployed by AFFORD to protect its economic interests.

AFFORD also has a management tool called PACES, that AFFORD documentation alleges is a Quality Management tool, they say is a tool to ensure all AFFORD businesses are continuing to deliver exceptional service to AFFORD clients, residents and employees.

 

Remember, post three times a week on Facebook and send through your good news stories to marketing@afford.com.au.”

 

Code of Conduct

****** Updated 10 June 2021 ******

One of my trusty sources…..Google Alerts……has produced an alert of a story published today by the ABC. Readers can read that story by following the link below directly to that story.

Of course I was aware that the ABC had interviewed Ms Petrus some weeks ago but did not know if the matter would be aired or did I know the nature of the story or how the interview would be used in support of that story.

However,  the 7:30 Report was an excellent presentation and cleverly pinpointed the exact root cause of the problems within AFFORD. Clearly they did the necessary research.

The 7:30 Report also reported some of the content of AFFORD’s commissioned “independent” report that was mentioned by Perry Duffin in the AAP media release soon after Merna passed.

As I have indicated many times throughout this blog, the internet is a wonderful platform where, with a bit of searching know-how and the right searching tools, you can find almost anything. Fortunately, I had managed to acquire that report soon after it was completed and shall refer to the contents therein shortly.

 

****** Update 14 June 2021 ******

Investigation Report and Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

Since my last post, I have had a few requests from those wanting to know what software we use to scrape data and or analyse data from the internet. We use many different commercial and open source systems including Maltego Pro, advanced Google operators together with various OSINT sites and some tools from Kali Linux.

Followers of this blog will recall that a meeting was arranged in August 2019 where the agenda was for an explanation to be given to Tanya about what happened to her daughter. In attendance was Tanya, the former CEO Steven Herald, Stephanie Forsyth, AFFORD lawyer Lucinda Lyons and myself.

When this meeting was held I had not seen the RCA that was billed as the AFFORD commissioned independent investigation. I assumed that Steven Herald had read that report seeing he was the one who commissioned it and in his role as CEO had to comply with NSW health regulations and provide one. Thus Steven Herald had the benefit of reading the RCA prior to the meeting. The RCA clearly identified that one of the carer’s on duty that night of the incident lied about what happened, and named her.

What is unclear is whether or not this carer also lied to the police. We do know that the police interviewed the 2 carers on duty well before the investigator preparing the RCA. This of course will be clear when the Coroner’s report is finalised and handed down to the family. When the report is available I shall check the facts to see if this carer lied to the police, and if she did, it raises the question why she would lie to the police yet be truthful to the AFFORD investigation. The suggestion here is, was she paid to lie? Did she receive some inducements or bonus? Did this carer receive any disciplinary action for lying about the incident and submitting a false report to AFFORD?

Prior to the August 2019 meeting, I was aware that the RCA had identified conflicting statements regarding the circumstances on the evening of concern. There were 2 versions of what actually transpired on that night and this was reported very early in this blog in 2019. One version was simply a lie, an excerpt from the RCA is below.

“I said in the (incident) report that Mxxxx was having a shower. This is not the case. She had not agreed to have a shower. In the incident report I said I left Mxxxx on the bed. I did not leave her on the bed. No one was on the bed. It was too early. I meant to say I left her lying on the couch. I said I put Merna on the floor and commenced CPR. However, we could not get her out of the bath. We did not put her on the floor. I did not do CPR….”

Information I have at hand indicated that Mxxxx had a shower later that night after she was moved to another facility following this incident.

It was most disturbing to attend the August 2019 meeting with Tanya only to hear ex CEO Steven Herald provide an account of what happened that night that he knew was a lie. He provided the version that was admitted to being false in the RCA. I am also endeavouring to find out if his lawyer,  Lucinda Lyons, also knew it was a lie. People with disabilities deserve to know the truth for obvious reasons, and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards commission must get to the bottom of this. It is not good enough that an organisation can secure millions of dollars of government funding on the back of contractual obligations to ensure safety for vulnerable people who cannot look after themselves, and in the event of neglect and failure in their duties, simply defeat the system by a cleverly orchestrated sophistificated cover-up.

In essence, one could reasonably suspect that the RCA was ordered to find out what went wrong and whose fault it was. This is generally what insurance factual investigators do, and there is an emphasis to establish if any contributory negligence exists . Their work is an attempt to illiminate or at best reduce the insurance company’s liability and thus minimise the payout for damages, which is fair enough. The possibilites of course in this matter were many and included suicide as a possible reason. But this was not the case.

I shall briefly refer to that RCA to add some clarity now that the RCA has been leaked in public and is out in the open.The purpose of the RCA was said to make recommendations regarding key safety and procedural issues which can benefit the organisation and it was billed as “independent”.

A few times throughout the RCA it is stated that the purpose of the report is to identify corrective actions that reduce the likelihood of a similar event happening again. The author stated that the RCA does not proportion blame to any individual or event (because that would lay the blame squarely onto AFFORD). Despite the assertion that the RCA does NOT proportion blame to any individual, I found a section titled “Contributory Factors” where blame is proportioned onto Merna herself.

The author of the RCA is far more skilled with factual investigations than I am. My skill set in relation to factual investigations is to supply the factual investigator with information from which a report is then prepared, something that I am doing here. Given the apparent lubriciousness  of the ex CEO, in these situations, I believe the system would best be served if in future the RCA was commissioned by the NDIS rather than the CEO where the incident occured. There were some major errors in the RCA, but in fairness, to investigate these errors might not have been part of the scope of the investigation, but there were errors nevertheless in favour of AFFORD.

The RCA, in my opinion, is not proportionate to the gravity of the situation.

Given the nature of the incident involved a death, I expected far more depth in the investigation, especially given the availability of AFFORD business records and witnesses to the investigator. The RCA stated that Merna locked the bathroom door. There is no evidence that she did this. The RCA investigator did not interview the family.

The RCA also stated that;

“The incident itself occurred some time between 6:45pm and 7:00pm…”

The incident actually occurred between 6:15pm and 7:00pm, maybe even as early as 6:00pm

Overall, the RCA identified AFFORD’s flaws, and given the existence also of several major errors of fact, these reports should be commissioned by an external independent party rather than the CEO of the company where the incident occurred.

The report must be truly impartial.

****** Update 15 June 2021 ******

 

Pat McGraths’ ABC’s 7:30 Report indicated that “AFFORD’s board has appointed external investigators to look into allegations of misuse of the charities funds by some senior staff.”

This is an incredible statement. The Chairman of the Board is former Mayor of Penrith, Mr Ross Fowler who happens to be a chartered accountant by trade and is principal of his Penrith based firm of Chartered Accountants providing accounting services for businesses. He has been Chairman of AFFORD’s board since 18 February 2004.

No disrespect intended to the AFFORD Chairman, but if he does not know by now that there has been a blatant misuse of AFFORD’s funds, he need look no further than the ABC’s 7:30 Report of 10 June 2021.

To bring him up to speed, let’s have a look at what a client of AFFORD eats for lunch noting the location where he eats his lunch.

The post Let the battle begin! appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

The post Part VI – A Fair Go appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

The post Part V – The Fake Report appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

Again in this blog I will be inviting readers to contact me if they have any information that might assist. Every piece of information will help make a difference.

In Part III of our blog, in our quest searching for answers why care services were not delivered to Merna on the evening she drowned after being left unsupervised in a bathtub, I suggested that I did not know if the reason was because of a lack of funding, indicating that it was all speculation at that time. See extract below taken from the 26 October 2019 update in Part III;

“Whilst there is nothing wrong with having lavish all expenses paid celebrations, there certainly is something wrong if you are celebrating with NDIS funding at the expense of not being able to deliver the services to the client in accordance with their NDIS plan simply because there is not enough funds to go around.

This at the present time is all speculation on my part as to the reasons why the services are not being delivered in accordance with the AFFORD quotations to provide such services, and to that end I shall be briefly examining their financial statements very soon to see if this is in fact the case.”

Therefore from the 26^th of October 2019, and well before the release of the AFFORD 2019 Annual Report found on the AFFORD website, AFFORD management have affectively been on notice that their next annual report to be released will be put under some scrutiny.

Whether or not this impending scrutiny had some influence on the contents of the latest 2019 report I do not know at this point, but there are some changes I am concerned may have been made with the intent to act as a smoke screen. After all AFFORD management has a history of creating smoke screens.

After a quick glance at the AFFORD 2019 Annual Report I noticed a small change in some information presented in this 2019 report that essentially had remained the same from 2015 – 2018. Why the sudden change? I found it suspicious given the timing of the change coinciding immediately after the earlier warning I had given, prior to publication of the report, that the report will be scrutinised. Additionally my suspicions were further aroused with these changes because I have already had some reports that AFFORD management had pushed workers out and was providing “jobs for the boys (and girls)”.

When looking through the AFFORD annual reports for the periods 2012 – 2019 there is a striking difference in the presentation of the annual reports from 2015 onwards. From 2015 onwards the annual reports suddenly look like a brightly coloured and glossy professional advertising promotion. The inclusion from 2015 onward of the “NDIS” theme in the annual reports is noticeable.

You can read the AFFORD annual reports here:

https://www.afford.com.au/about/afford-publications/

Prior to 2015 the annual reports had just one or two colours in the theme but more importantly they appeared just like one would expect an annual report to look like. Certainly they did NOT look like professional marketing material.

I was left wondered what the significant event was that made everything change from 2015 onwards.

Noticeably in the annual reports from 2015, and in each and every report until 2019 there has been the inclusion of 3 members in the executive management group not seen before; namely Steven Herald, Stephanie Forsyth and Christina Emmanouel. These 3 were accompanied by their ID photograph and underneath a small narration about their history and current positions with AFFORD

It’s uncanny that these 3 new executive managers have featured in a number of reports I have received where the allegation is that the CEO, Steven Herald, has given these other two people high paying executive management positions not because of their academic backgrounds but simply because they were his friends and provided him with much needed loyal support. I would be really interested if any readers can shed some light on this allegation.

This allegation of stacking the deck with power brokers is a common theme and one I have had dealings with before at a totally different level but nevertheless involving registered charitable organisations and millions of dollars at stake.

In the 2015 annual report, it stated that Steven Herald started with AFFORD in April of that year. In this report and in each and every year after and including the 2019 report, narration under his ID photograph indicated that he previously held roles with Flight Centre, Mister Minit and Hoyts.

There was no indication of when Stephanie Forsyth and Christina Emmanouel started with AFFORD in the 2015 report, however seeing that they both did not feature in any previous reports before the 2015 edition, this indicated to me that it was likely they also started with AFFORD at around the same time as Steven Herald in 2015 and certainly before the 2015 edition was printed and released on the website. Based on the information provided to me, Steven Herald started at AFFORD before the other 2 and not the other way around.

However, referring to the small change I noticed and mentioned above, where suddenly there is a noticeable change in the latest report of 2019, it was in the narration under Steven Herald’s ID photograph where the change occurred. There is now a declaration that he started at AFFORD in 2016 and that he previously worked at Civic Disability. Since 2015 and in every annual report after that up to an including the 2018 annual report, it has always stated that Steven Herald started at AFFORD in 2015 and in this section there has never been a mention that he previously worked for Civic Disability, even though each year since he started it was stated that he previously worked for Flight Centre, Mister Minit and Hoyts

STEVEN HERALD B. Bus, CA

Chief Executive Officer

Steven joined Afford in April 2016 as Chief Executive Officer following a similar role with Civic Disability Services Limited

So whoever prepared this latest annual report, the 2019 issue, has got it all wrong with regards to who started first and I want to know why? Why suddenly is there a declaration that he started with AFFORD in 2016 and why is it now stated under his ID photograph that he previously worked for Civic Disability when this has never been stated here before ? If any readers can offer any information to assist, please contact me.

As previously advised, we will be taking a brief look at the lack of funding issue as a possible reason for not providing proper care services to Merna, because to be fair it might be a legitimate reason why the care services purchased from AFFORD by Merna through NDIS funding was not delivered that said evening.

On the other hand if a lack of funding is NOT the issue, then equally it is beneficial to know that for many sensible reasons.

One reason might be the possibility of AFFORD’s management being negligent in their duties.  Given AFFORD’s unwillingness to provide an explanation to Ms Petrus of what happened to her daughter and also a willingness to provide false details to Perry Duffin, the AAP news reporter about what happened, one must seriously wonder why this was so?

If a lack of funding is one of the reasons why the care service was not delivered to Merna when she needed this service most, it would not be unreasonable to assume that this lack of funding problem existed across the board and the whole organisation experienced the same lack of funding problem.

I would be interested to know amongst other things, the rates of pay for the senior management at AFFORD and what bonuses they might get? Can anyone help me here with that information?

****** Update 16 April 2020 ******

The first thought that came to my mind when looking at the before and after photographs above, was – “what happened?”

The second thought – was this some sort of clever marketing strategy? Please be aware that I have no evidence to support this, but it’s merely a thought, based on observation and previous experience.  Big business tend to want to move seamlessly into an area especially when they are building a power station, or major industrial site for example, and generally where there is going to be a lot of trucks and noise and risk of pollution and opposition from the local community. In order to achieve that, they often embark on a community based program in the local primary school and also build local council a new library or new chambers or something like that to get that project up and running with as little opposition from anyone as possible, and as little time in the Land and Environment Court. It’s far cheaper this way and it works like a charm.

Having a little deeper look into the Cherrywood site, it was not purchased but rather acquired by AFFORD as a result of a donation.  The 22 hectare site was redeveloped 4-5 years ago and therefore would have had Penrith council involvement and scrutiny in the process.

It would be interesting to know how this process meshed together given the land is said to be also inhabited by an endangered species of frog. The property, I am told, is riddled with asbestos and this might be the reason why the Cherrywood site that was occupied by about 40 residents with special needs soon after redevelopment, no longer has any residents at all, other than the caretaker and his family.

So 40 or so residents moved in, and then they moved out and were re-located. The property thus also has served as a great marketing tool for AFFORD for a relatively short period of time. See the photographs below.

The post Part IV – Jobs for the boys appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

The post Part III -Another cover up appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

Just to recap in our previous blog on this topic, titled Part 1 – Investigating Merna’s Death, we started our investigations armed only with the information from news articles sourced online.

The articles highlighted some interesting pieces of information. Firstly the date that they were printed attracted my interest because the articles were printed on 30 May and 1 week after Merna passed on 23 May.

Ms Petrus said she was interviewed by the press a few days after 23 May, so it was likely the other people were interviewed by the press a few days after the 23^rd too. Of particular significance were a number of quotes from an employee of AFFORD, namely Casey Hailes. See quotes below.

“Ms Hailes told AAP that Afford is yet to be provided with a formal cause of death.”

“I don’t believe she was left in the bath for too long and I don’t believe she drowned,” she said, adding the event was “tragic”.

But, Ms Hailes said, Afford had not been made aware of Merna’s overnight seizures and, if that information had been disclosed, they would have submitted documents to the NDIS and applied for funding to properly meet those needs.

Ms Hailes admitted she did not know the cause of death at that stage but notably she was in possession of information that totally exonerated AFFORD and their staff. Additionally she apparently knew enough to lay blame on a medical episode that Merna had. She also alluded to Ms Petrus or someone else (and not AFFORD) being at fault for non-disclosure for not informing AFFORD of “overnight seizures”. The article stated AFFORD have allegedly hired themselves an external investigator to examine the incident. I would be interested in reading their version.

Ms Hailes had some days to plan this response to the press and therefore I suspected that the response would have been planned. So I took her responses as “AFFORD’s” response noting a denial of any wrongdoings and laying blame elsewhere. After reading the article I suspected that Casey Hailes might have been a patsy.

Firstly, when I conducted my secret investigations over several days from about 17 Jun, my findings were at total loggerheads with Ms Hailes statements to the press. She could not have gotten it more wrong.

Secondly, was Ms Hailes making an admission here in that if AFFORD had been aware of Merna’s seizures they would have done things differently (and prevented the death), or was she making an admission here that AFFORD had not done their due diligence properly and therefore did not know this information? Of importance to note that Merna was on the medication “Tegretol” with dosage twice daily.

I desperately needed to know AFFORD’s version because by now they would have been in possession of investigation reports. Additionally, some of the AFFORD management attended the scene on the night of the 23^rd May and would have interviewed the carers working that evening. Certainly the carers would have provided an account to their employer, not to mention other records.

With no reply to Ms Petros’s letter, and no reply to my  letter by 22 July, that I was certain AFFORD would reply to, the previous hint of a cover-up, in my view was materialising. It seemed that AFFORD did not want to provide any answers, and certainly not anything that their hired external investigators found during their investigations, because they wanted to cover up or avoid something. Bearing in mind by this point I knew the circumstances, give or take a few minutes, as indicated at the end of Part I of this blog in points 1 -12.

On 2 August 2019, I was both surprised and shocked when I received an email from AFFORD’s Stephanie Forsyth with letter attached addressed to me dated 2 August 2019. The letter reads as follows;

2 August 2019

Dear Mr Johns

We refer to your letter dated 18 July 2019, received by Afford on 26 July 2019.

Whilst we appreciate the difficult time Ms Petrus must be experiencing and her understandable need for answers, as Merna’s death continues to be the subject of an investigation by the NSW Police and the Office of the State Coroner, we remain unable to provide any conclusive answers regarding how Merna died.

It has certainly not been our intention to withhold information from Ms Petrus and we trust that you will understand that with ongoing investigations, there has not yet been a determination as to the precise events and circumstances of Merna’s death.

However, having regard to your letter and the further request from Ms Petrus for additional information, we are willing to meet with Ms Petrus to discuss the factual matters surrounding Merna’s death and the events of 23 May 2019, to the best of our knowledge.

We propose that the meeting take place at your offices, at either 11am or 3pm on Wednesday, 7 August – please let us know if that suits.

Please note that Afford has retained a solicitor, Lucinda Lyons of Clyde & Co, who will attend and assist in facilitating the meeting.

Regards

Stephanie Forsyth

******Update 7:45pm 25 August 2019******

It seemed my letter with deadline to reply by 22 July 2019 to the CEO of AFFORD worked a treat after all.

Too well in fact, because AFFORD not only wanted to meet up with me, they also wanted to meet up with Ms Petros and deliver her the answers that they had previously refused to give.

I had a number of concerns;

• Was Ms Petros willing to meet face to face with AFFORD or did she just want me to meet them for her?
• Why did AFFORD previously refuse to give Ms Petros some answers, as they said, because there was a police/coronial investigation underway, but when they received an investigators letter requesting same, they did a big back flip and now wanted to meet up and provide answers, even though the same police/coronial investigation was still ongoing?
• Why was there a need to bring a lawyer to this meeting, especially if AFFORD had done absolutely nothing wrong?
• AFFORD claimed the lawyer was retained by them, but I will bet that this lawyer was really AFFORD’s insurer’s lawyer. The lawyer was probably retained by the insurer and not AFFORD. If so, why did they mislead me and say they retained the lawyer when in fact it was the insurer who retained the lawyer?
• Who was the lawyer really acting for? AFFORD or the insurance company?
• Why did AFFORD want to meet in my office? The costs to bring a lawyer, including travel time, preparation, writing a report etc would likely exceed $5,000, but as I said, I reckon that the insurer will foot the bill.
• The AFFORD letter alleged that my letter of 18 July 2019 was received by them on 26 July 2019. In fact I had personally hand delivered that letter to an AFFORD receptionist on 18 July 2019 at their head office.  I took a photograph at the time of delivery for good reason. Was AFFORD trying to blame me for pulling a dirty trick by sending a letter 4 days after the deadline I set for a reply? Or were they themselves pulling that good old trick of blaming the postman? The fact of the matter here is that AFFORD was laying blame elsewhere and not accepting any responsibility.

******Updated 3:45pm 28 August 2019******

I quickly responded and the meeting was arranged for 11am on Wednesday, 7 August in a café next door to my office.

Immediately after confirming the meeting, a call was made to Ms Petros wherein I told Ms Petros that AFFORD had answered my letter and also indicated that they wanted her to attend and were prepared to provide answers.

Point blank Ms Petros refused to attend. She kept saying that she could not face them knowing what had happened. I knew I would somehow have to do my best to get her there. I told her that although it seems somehow AFFORD were at fault, we still do not know this, and we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They might be in the right and also offer the reasons why and certainly deserve the right to do so.

On the evening of 6 August, the night before our meeting, I again spoke with Ms Petros and she said,

“I am not going.”

On Wednesday, 7 August, the day of the proposed meeting, early in the morning I telephoned Ms Petros and pleaded with her to come. 

I said,

“I am not going without you. There’ve obviously reconsidered their position. It’s a brave and big step forward. We asked them to a meeting, and they graciously accepted our offer. It’ll be a slap in the face to refuse to go. The CEO is coming personally and they have written that they will discuss the factual matters around Merna’s death. We still need some answers. It’s likely to be a healing process for them too. We owe it to them to attend.”

She said,

 “I’ll just want to scream at them the minute they get there”.

I reminded Ms Petros of the little motto I had given her to embrace and guide her when in doubt.

“Think action – act thoughts.”

Ms Petros quickly reminded me of the motto I had set for myself in this investigation;

“The dogs are barking……but the caravan still passes through.”

She said,

“I will see you there.”

I thought…….YEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

This was a huge step towards resolution. After all it would certainly have been a traumatic, unexpected and unwanted tragedy for AFFORD also, especially the carers on duty at the time.

I would do my best to make sure Ms Petros did not have to endure the arduous process she was now faced. A straw that could well break the camel’s back was on my mind continuously. 

There was only one real set of answers……..and the truth provided these and our focus was on getting not just some of the truth, but all of the truth. That was my brief.

Getting the parties involved, ie AFFORD, the insurer and Ms Petros to work in harmony seeking answers and a solution without the need for litigation I thought was definitely the best option for Ms Petros and all round. Besides, there is also no need to expend $1m or more on legal fees in this case just to find out if there was any negligence and of course damage suffered by Ms Petros as a result. As mentioned earlier, there might not be any negligence at all in this matter, and until all the answers are provided, we simply do not know.

Ms Petros arrived at 10:45am and together we went into the café and sat on the sunny balcony overlooking landscaped gardens surrounding a tennis court and pool. It was relaxing and Ms Petros felt comfortable, albeit anxious.

Let’s not forget that BOTH Ms Petros and myself by now had a reasonably good understanding of what transpired on that fateful evening when Merna passed. I had given her an account on 23 July when AFFORD’s CEO failed to contact me by close of business on the 22 July as indicated in Part I of this blog.

For reasons I shall explain later, I was of the view that those attending the meeting on behalf of AFFORD ie, CEO Steven Herald, human resources manager Stephanie Forsyth  and lawyer Lucinda Lyons, did not have a clue that I had some of the answers already, and therefore nor did they have a clue either that I had already briefed Ms Petros on 23 July with the answers I had obtained.

It was 11:15 am and the AFFORD contingent had not turned up…. so we thought.

When I went inside the cafe to purchase another coffee I saw that they were sitting inside and towards the back of the large rustic cafe. Obviously they had entered via another door. I quickly recognised CEO Steven Herald from the AFFORD website.

After walking over and greeting them, I wondered why they appeared to be so shocked with my greeting. I later realised when we sat down it was because on my website there were still quite a few errors the previous  designer had made when she updated the site, including taking down the wrong photograph. The site used to have my photograph and the photograph of another investigator, David Travini. The designer in error took down my picture and left the other investigator’s picture in place of mine thus falsely indicating he was in fact was me. This error has now been resolved.

The AFFORD guests were escorted to the table where Ms Petros was waiting on the sunny balcony. We all chatted briefly and I pointed out that I have not taken any statements from any witnesses and Ms Petros has not retained a lawyer. Although I did not tell them, the reason here was because I was undecided if Ms Petros needed a lawyer with criminal law expertise, or if she required a lawyer with negligence and personal damage claims expertise.

Lawyer Ms Lyons then introduced Steven Herald CEO of AFFORD to tell us what happened. He was well dressed and well-groomed and understandably was very nervous when he delivered his version of events.

In relation to group homes Mr Herald said;

“We can’t keep up with demand”.

Essentially the AFFORD CEO claimed the events occurred as follows;

• One of the carers half-filled the bath for Merna with bubble bath in.
• She then left Merna in the bath at about 6:30pm and left the door ajar.
• About 3-6 minutes later she checked on Merna and saw Merna playing with the bubbles in the bath. She then went and prepared food for the following day
• A split second later this carer found that the door was locked and she called out to the other carer who was showering another client for assistance but by this time she was blow drying the clients hair.
• The carer who was called to provide assistance opened the door using a knife, “as you do”
• While she was opening the door with the knife, the other carer went outside and saw Merna face down in the bath from the outside window.
• Both carers entered the bathroom and had difficulty in lifting Merna out of the bath.
• CPR was performed by one of the carers and emergency services were called.

After the AFFORD CEO had provided us with his account of the incident, I was gob smacked. All the questions I had planned to ask and things to discuss just faded into the void that had just been created in my mind.

All I could think of was poor Ms Petros, and I was the one who insisted that she came to this meeting.

I recovered ever so slightly then said words to the effect to Mr Herald,

“A Garry Poole prepared the CDC. I wanted to know if the round doorknob on the bathroom door was compliant (with regulations).”

Mr Herald butted in when I mentioned round doorknob and stated word to the effect;

 “All AFFORD’s residences are 100% compliant with regulations. We spend many thousands of dollars each year on compliance. Some other places are not compliant but all our homes are compliant.”

During the meeting I did explain that I have worked with many fine lawyers over the years and I did not see the necessity to instruct one unless it later became necessary. I told Ms Lyons that I can obtain all the necessary documents needed myself, and if not I could instruct a lawyer to get those documents.  She agreed. However, I added that given that AFFORD most likely have many of the documents that I will be seeking, could she provide them to me? Ms Lyons confirmed that she would indeed provide me with factual documents upon my request and we both shook hands and sealed the deal.

When the AFFORD group had left, Ms Petros and I were still in a state of shock after hearing how the events of that evening allegedly unfolded to the best of Mr Herald’s knowledge. He spoke as though there was nothing that could have been done better under the circumstances. It was unavoidable. In a split second the door was found to be locked?

I looked at Ms Petrus and said,

“That was bullshit”.

Ms Petros said,

“All I wanted to do was scream, but I kept thinking …..think action – act thoughts.”

We could not believe that Mr Herald’s account described events that happened over a much shorter time frame. “A split second” resonated in my mind while we discussed what was said and I took notes at the café before we left. It allegedly happened in a split second.

I was not convinced with the account given by the CEO. Both Ms Petros and I were expecting some more padding with facts surrounding the account of the incident to what I had already provided to her but nevertheless expected something along the same vein.

There were a number of anomalies that I was immediately alerted to during Mr Herald’s account.

Let’s not forget here that prior to the meeting, Ms Lyons, being the insurer’s lawyer, was most likely armed with the benefit of a factual investigation report that was prepared by experts with all the available witnesses, documents and records available to them. Mr Herald was allegedly armed with an independent external investigation report as reported to the AAP and indicated earlier in Part I of this investigation where AFFORD stated to the press,

 “They have hired an external investigator to determine what happened.”

Additionally, the AFFORD CEO, as employer would have been privy to a whole host of other documents, including access to the carers and certainly much more data than what I accessed over the few hours that it took me to arrive at my findings.

In any case, I am certain that Mr Herald was not at the said group home on the night of the 23^rd of May 2019 when the incident happened. Therefore for him to provide an account to us, like he did, he must have obtained that account from someone or somewhere.

One of the things that Mr Herald said, as innocuous as it may seem, alerted my suspicions as to the veracity of the information he presented so much so that I will assert, and later endeavour to prove, was that he knew this information was false too and thus was a cover up.

For those who have been following the thread of this blog will by now be under no misconception that I have had from day 1 suspicions of a cover up.

I know full well that the NSW police service have done, and probably are still doing, a splendid job investigating this matter and preparing documents for the Coroner to consider in October re a Coronial Inquest. In fact Ms Petros reported to me that the police have been doing an amazing job and the support they have provided to her has been invaluable and helped her immensely. Goodonya NSW police service.

I know that AFFORD also know that the NSW police are conducting inquiries because if you recall they used this as the very reason why they could not tell Ms Petros what happened.  They only decided to tell her anything after they found out that she had an investigator seeking those answers.

It follows in order for me to find out what happened, I had to find out if there was a cover up as I suspected. Therefore it was paramount in this investigation to establish if there was a cover up first of all because one simply does not need a cover up if there is nothing to cover up. It’s not rocket science here but why the cover up I thought.

Certainly all the indicators were leading to a cover up, and of course I already knew a little bit more than I was prepared to reveal. Unravelling why the need for a cover up, I felt would ultimately lead us to the truth of what happened to Merna. This is the reason why I so desperately wanted to know AFFORD’s version of events, to confirm or dismiss my suspicions of a cover up one way or the other.

The police have already indicated no criminal charges would be laid. That being said does not preclude the possibility of criminal negligence.

I will allege that the CEO of AFFORD quoted at our meeting as fact of the matter, information he sourced from an erroneous report knowing full well that it was not true and was designed to cover up the incident. This of course begs the question in my mind, why on earth would he possibly consider that option and in the face of a police investigation too?

AFFORD are of course insured for mishaps and for when things go awfully wrong as they had done in this case. But, in the case of criminal negligence, there was a very high chance the AFFORD insurance policy would be void. I was left wondering if this was the reason why the lawyer came to our meeting and if this was the reason why there was a cover up as I am alleging. I am of course suspecting the cover up could be for the purpose of shifting what would otherwise be a case of criminal negligence and not covered by insurance, to one that is simply negligence and covered by insurance. So essentially by alleging nothing is amiss, as AFFORD have done in the media, and at our meeting with them, they know full well (if something was amiss) the police will likely highlight that in their report but not investigate further because that is not their job. But it certainly is my job, and little wonder AFFORD jumped as expected when I wrote to them and wanted a meeting.

In one of the CEO’s submission at the meeting, he said that one of the carers found the bathroom door was locked and called for help from the other carer who was showering another client at the time but by this time she was blow drying her hair. This other client has cerebral palsy so by the time the carer took her from the shower, dressed the client, and was blow drying her hair, quite some time would have elapsed.

However this is not the issue that concerns me. The issue of where the CEO got that information is of major concern at the present time, and why he chose to present that information to Ms Petros as an account to the best of his knowledge indicated to me a cover up at the top level. I do recall that AFFORD initially did not want to provide Ms Petros with any answers at all.

I am also astounded that Ms Lyons, lawyer likely working for the insured, accepted this as a version of events. Her factual investigators would have done a superb job on this matter and I will soon challenge her to produce that report in accordance with our handshake agreement. I should point out that Ms Lyons offered to assist by providing factual information about the matter before this blog was commenced. She should be commended for that.

On 8 August, the day after our meeting, I wrote to Ms Lyons the following email;

Hi Lucinda

Thank you for our meeting yesterday. Certainly it wasn’t easy, but definitely a step in the right direction. At our meeting you expressed a willingness to work with me in an endeavor to seek out the true facts of what happened.

I spoke briefly with the detective handling the matter and she expressed the view that no criminal charges would be laid.

Naturally I have done some nosing around and I must advise that I was very surprised that Mr Herald’s account that he gave yesterday, was far removed from my findings thus far.

Can we meet up soon for some general discussions on how best to move forward for the mutual benefit of both our clients?

I am happy to travel to the city.

Best regards

Tony Johns

Disappointingly Ms Lyons wrote back on 12 August indicating that she had noticed a number of recent amendments to my website. She also indicated concerns about dealing with me via meetings, and suggested all communication from hereon had to be via email.

Of concern, and where my disappointment arose, it was noted that she totally ignored the subject of Mr Herald’s account being far removed from my findings.

On 16 August 2019, I responded to Ms Lyons letter of 12 August as follows;

Attention: Lucinda Lyons

Clyde & Co

Level 15

333 George St

Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Lucinda

Re:       Merna Aprem

I refer to your email of 12 August in response to my email to you of 8 August 2019.

I should advise that the purpose of my email to you of 8 August was not to seek an appraisal of my website. Your interest in my website is noted. I am aware that there were errors on the website and subsequent recent revisions and I do thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Kind regards

Tony Johns

Inner Sydney Investigations

****** Updated 3:30pm 14 September 2019 ******

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who so far have provided assistance and information. I am happy to continue to receive anonymous information too, especially if you are a current or former employee of AFFORD.

Our investigations will continue right to the very end.

I have prepared a brief chronology;

08 Nov 2018                 Garry Poole of Newcastle Building Certifiers signed a Complying Development Certificate certifying that the proposed development (construction of alterations to existing dwelling to be used as a group home) to be carried out to the AFFORD owned home at Woodbine NSW, is a complying development, and, if carried out as specified will comply with all development standards applicable. The building classifications of this building were listed as 3 and 5. The group home could accommodate up to 5 clients.

07 Jan 2019                   The above Complying Development Certificate (CDC) was lodged at Campbelltown Council.

Renovation work was carried out to turn the former home into a group home in readiness to house up to 5 people with disabilities.

 Prior to occupation of the said group home, Newcastle Building Certifiers would have issued a self-certified certificate that the group home was compliant with regulations and ready for occupation. I will be seeking that document in due course.

Prior to occupation of the said group home, AFFORD should have commissioned and paid for an Access Report. I will be seeking that report in due course.

 Prior to Merna moving into the group home a number of other documents would have to have been prepared, including an Epilepsy Management Plan, and provided to the NDIS Safeguards Commission. I will be seeking those documents in due course.

14 Mar 2019                 Merna moved into the AFFORD’s Woodbine group home. Within a few days there were a total of 3 clients, namely Merna, a high needs client with cerebral palsy, and another woman with health issues not involving any physical disability.

15 Mar 2019                 Merna’s NDIS Plan was approved.

23 May 2019                 Merna drowned in a bathtub in AFFORDS group home while 2 carers were on duty. One was watching TV at the time.

30 May 2019                 AAP ran a story titled “Mum demands answers after death in care” that was only covered by the local papers across the country.

30 May 2019                 AFFORD was quoted in the press making statements denying all liability, indicating the potential of a cover up in the makings.

30 May 2019                 AFFORD letter dated 30 May to Ms Petrus offering condolences (that arrived a week later).

17 Jun 2019                  I elected to commence discreet investigations Ms Petros was unaware of and in the process further evidence of a cover up was found.

 25 Jun 2019                 Ms Petrus posted a letter dated 25 Jun to AFFORD asking for some answers. She wanted to know what happened to her daughter.

10 Jul 2019                   I placed a general inquiry telephone call to AFFORD. When I asked if a client would be safe living in an AFFORD group home after reading in the media about a drowning, AFFORD could not provide an answer to this question.

16 Jul 2019                   Ms Petrus received a registered letter from AFFORD dated 10 July, in response to her letter of 25 June, declining to provide any answers on the grounds that the police were still investigating for the Coroner.

17 Jul 2019                   Ms Petrus posted a letter dated 17 Jul 2019 advising she was now putting the matter in the hands of investigator Tony Johns of Inner Sydney Investigations seeking the answers AFFORD refused to provide.

18 Jul 2019                   I personally delivered a letter to AFFORD at 2:18pm seeking a response by end of day 22 July and took a photograph at the time.

22 Jul 2019                   No response was received from AFFORD by the 5pm deadline.

23 Jul 2019                   I met with Ms Petros at 1pm wherein she was advised of the findings of our investigations thus far, informing her of the circumstances that indicated Merna was last seen in a bath at about 6pm and the next time she was seen was about an hour later when she was then deceased after drowning.

26 Jul 2019                   The day AFFORD alleges (in their correspondence to me of 2 Aug) they received my letter that I personally delivered on 18 Jul.

2 Aug 2019                   I received an email from AFFORD with attached letter proposing a meeting for 7 Aug.

7 Aug 2019                   Meeting with AFFORD. Present were, Ms Petros, Ms Forsyth from AFFORD, Ms Lyons lawyer for Clyde & Co, Mr Herald CEO of AFFORD and Tony Johns, investigator.

 7 Aug 2019                  The AFFORD CEO delivered a version of events of what he alleged happened on that day that led to the drowning of Merna.

7 Aug 2019                   I had a separate meeting with Ms Petros after the AFFORD contingent left. We made contemporaneous notes of what was said at the meeting that in my view provided further indications a cover up.

8 Aug 2019                   I wrote and sent an email to AFFORD’s lawyer, Ms Lyons, indicating that the AFFORD CEO’s version of events was far removed from the version I had obtained and wanted to meet in her office to discuss this for the mutual benefit of both our clients.

12 Aug 2019                 Ms Lyons sent an email to me in response to my email to her of 8 Aug, however she neglected to address the issue of conflicting stories re the death of Merna, yet found it appropriate to take a swipe at me for some recent corrections of errors on my website.

16 Aug 2019                 I responded by email to Ms Lyons email to me of 12 Aug thanking her for her interest in my website.

I will be adding to this chronology as we move forward with this matter.

During the AFFORD meeting on 7 August it was noted that the AFFORD CEO stated that all AFFORD homes are 100% compliant.

I was unsure if he meant 100% compliant as at the time of our meeting, or he meant as at the time of Merna’s passing on 23 May? However, my investigators have maintained intermittent surveillance in the area of the AFFORD group home at Woodbine and have obtained the identity of a handyman who conducted some repair work there at the Woodbine group home on several occasions after the incident of 23 May. I am not in any way suggesting this man has done anything wrong, or is involved in some conspiracy to cover up this incident, but I do know that when I checked online, he was not a licensed tradesman. Of course, having identified this worker, we will be seeking to find out exactly what work he has done here and why he did it and of course examining all of the work done to modify the home so that it can carry out the business of operating as a group home for the disabled and checking if it indeed was 100% compliant as at the time of occupation.

Whilst on the topic of a cover up. I would like to draw attention to some of the ramifications of a cover up, which in essence might also be seen to be muddying the waters.

To highlight what I am talking about, and one of the reasons why I am seeking out the true facts here of what happened in this matter, is because it can seriously impact on any legitimate insurance claim for damages that might be made.

For example, take a look at a recent case that took six years to resolve, where a 17 year old passenger in the vehicle ended up a quadriplegic. Despite police reporting that the father was the driver of the vehicle, along the way some erroneous information surfaced that was indicating that it was actually the boy driving the vehicle and not the father. This was enough to trigger a six year battle, a battle I might add a lot of people would simply give up on, especially if they were emotionally damaged. If anyone is interested here is the link to the story;

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-quadriplegic-wins-3-35-million-compensation-after-2013-crash-20190905-p52obz.html

I found it extremely suspicious that Stephanie Forsyth could write to Ms Petros, as per her letter dated 10 July and use the excuse that the matter was still being investigated, and so they (AFFORD) could not provide an explanation what happened.  But isn’t that what police investigations want? More information from the public so they can properly investigate the matter? The more information they have the better they can investigate and here we have AFFORD trying to stifle information. I am not sure of the exact stats here, but something like over 90% of crimes solved by the police comes from the assistance given to them by the public submitting information to them.

On the subject of stifling information, I also found it extraordinary that earlier on in my investigations when I wanted to interview relevant witnesses, they could not speak with me because AFFORD (possibly at the direction of their lawyer who really isn’t their lawyer and is the lawyer working for the insurance company) got all relevant staff and workers to sign a “hush” agreement whereby they are not allowed to say anything, especially to Ms Petros and especially to me!

Fortunately I could go without their input for the time being but suffice to say, I am used to these tactics and will later show how easily it is to circumvent these dodgy agreements. But it begs the question, if you have done nothing wrong, why the need to have staff sign them?

Moving back to the insurance issue of muddying the waters, and providing false information to cover up a matter, it’s a known fact that someone lodging a claim for compensation, if they provide false information, especially if the intent is for a financial benefit, they could be charged with a number of criminal charges and wind up in jail! Very similar to the recent matter reported in the press where a Sydney lawyer was charged with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. Here is the link to that story;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/a-lot-of-sheets-law-firm-director-charged-over-david-jones-returns-20190829-p52lv9.html

I will be examining this matter very closely, especially the cover up as I am alleging, and then providing this information to an expert criminal lawyer to see if there are any grounds for criminal action. Certainly it is my view, if it’s fair enough to charge someone for making a fraudulent claim, ie it’s a crime to obtain a financial advantage by deception, then surely it must equally be a crime committed when someone provides false information, especially if they have an unfair advantage, and the victim suffers a financial disadvantage as a result.

The matter of a cover up has taken a whole new meaning now, and I will be working diligently to resolve this issue, even if it takes me 6 years to complete. If anyone is engaging in this sort of cover up, they will be identified and they will get caught.

The post Part II: The Cover Up appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.

“I want to make sure no parents go through what I’m going through. This has changed me forever.”Ms Petrus, a single mother of six children, is demanding to know how her daughter could have been left alone to die. You can read the full article here: –

https://www.merimbulanewsweekly.com.au/story/6192162/mum-demands-answers-after-death-in-care/

Ms Petrus needed answers and despite the following excerpt from a media release, did not receive any support from AFFORD other than a 2 line letter offering deepest condolences. She engaged a private investigator for help and enlisted Inner Sydney Investigations and that’s how I became involved.

“The company that runs the group home, Afford, told AAP they will continue to support Ms Petrus following her daughter’s death. They have hired an external investigator to determine what happened.”

The views and opinions here I should make clear are expressly mine and not necessarily shared by anyone, or influenced by anyone. They are solely mine. Tony Johns

In this case I have decided to conduct an open investigation of the matter as best as I can. It would be pleasing to see all those genuine people, especially carers who have some time and knowledge spare to contribute here. I therefore welcome your help via contributions. The reason for this is solely for the benefit and protection of the many thousands of other clients who are currently in care and who unlike Merna must be safe at all times. If you prefer, you can contact me personally at tony@innersydneyinvestigations.com

Simply put, it is not the client’s responsibility to ensure they are safe, and for the most part, many clients do not have the ability to speak up or determine if they are truly safe or not. It is up to us to protect our own, so I would strongly urge everyone to urgently check the facilities where client’s with disabilities are housed and frequent.

On Wednesday 10 July 2019 I telephoned AFFORD and spoke with a Ms Elnajar about our consideration to moving my sister into an AFFORD group home. She suitably answered all the questions about facilities and services I asked except for the one about where it sits now re safety after reading the report in the media about the young woman drowning in one of AFFORDS group homes.

She said, “I don’t know how to reply to that. I’ll have to get Kirsten who is our specialist in that area to call you. I can’t answer that question.”

To date I have not received a call back despite making a further call on Monday, 15 July 2019 and leaving my phone number and a message on Kirsten’s voicemail.

When I opened this case I made an assessment so that I could prepare a way forward. There was no road map.

My first thoughts – I was deeply impressed by this mother’s drive after the devastation of what happened to her daughter when she expressed a strong desire to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else.

I quickly realised there had already been a mile of data compiled, with many statements taken by different groups. I did not need to instruct my factual investigators to do this. These are the investigators who specialise in interviewing people and taking signed statements along with photographs of accident scenes much like AFFORD’s insurance investigators would already have done.

I told Ms Petrus it would not be necessary for me to find out these answers because others would do the job for her. The police had investigated and would prepare a report. AFFORD’s insurance company would have rushed factual investigators onto the matter, recording and taking statements from everyone with any involvement, inspecting and taking copies of business records and likely taking photographs of the group home in question. Additionally I suspected other regulatory bodies would also be involved immediately.

This incident was peculiar in that the drowning of Merna did not happen at the beach, or on a fun day at the waterworks. It happened in the bath on the premises where someone was in the specific business of providing care so that these things don’t happen.

I suggested that Ms Petrus simply writes to AFFORD and asks them because they would by now have all the answers. She knew that the official cause of death was drowning, but of course did not know how this could possibly happen.

After all, AFFORD are in the business of providing care, and if they really cared now was the time to show it. It should have been a simple matter of writing them a letter to find out. (see below excerpt from SBS news report on the matter).

“The care given to every Afford client is of the highest quality and Afford promotes the highest standards of best practice within the disability sector.”

Ms Petrus was not up to writing the letter so I helped draft the letter and on 25 June a letter from Ms Petrus was sent to AFFORD. See copy below.

25 June 2019

Stephanie Forsyth              

AFFORD

3-7 Marianne Pl

Minchinbury NSW 2770

Dear Stephanie,

Thank you for your letter of 30 May 2019 passing on your condolences and those of the Afford Board and senior executive for the death of Merna.

In all fairness could you please provide me with an explanation of what happened?

 Warm regards

 Tanya Petrus

****** Updated 19 August 11:40am ******

On 16 July 2019 Ms Petrus received by registered post a reply dated 10 July to the above letter she sent to AFFORD. The body of that letter is below

Dear Tanya

We refer to your letter dated 25 June 2019.

We understand your need for an explanation as to what happened. However, the Events of 23 May 2019 and the cause of Merna’s death are currently being investigated by the Coroner and no findings have yet been made. We contacted the Office of the State Coroner to request an update as to the status of the investigation and were informed that unfortunately, the investigation may take several months.

Accordingly, as the circumstances surrounding Merna’s death are still being investigated, we are not in a position to provide you with any conclusive answers or explanation as to what happened.

Once again, we provide our sincere condolences to you and your family.

AFFORD declined to provide any answers or an explanation. I found this extraordinary because AFFORD would by now have been in possession of most of the vital information. Ms Petrus was not seeking any conclusive answers as to the cause of death but simply wanted to know what happened, the circumstances that let to that.

On 17 July 2019 Ms Petrus responded to the AFFORD letter dated 10 July. Excerpts from Ms Petrus’s letter are below.

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 10 July 2019 received 16 July by registered mail.

The letter acknowledges your understanding that I need an explanation yet does not provide one.

It is regrettable that you have chosen not to provide me with an explanation based on the following excuse;

“ …… the events of 23 May 2019 and the cause of Merna’s death are currently being    investigated by the Coroner….”

 I was not seeking any conclusive answers but simply wanted to know what happened.

Notwithstanding your blatant refusal to provide me with an explanation of how it came about that my daughter was left unattended and drowned in a bathtub, I will seek those answers nevertheless.

Accordingly, please be advised that I have instructed Mr Tony Johns of Inner Sydney Investigations to conduct investigations seeking those answers that for reasons you have chosen not to provide to me.

I have also provided Mr Johns with a signed authority to obtain documents on behalf and generally do whatever is necessary to find out what happened and why it happened.

Tanya Petrus

****** Updated 19 August 9:20pm ******

On 18 July 2019 I wrote a letter to the CEO of AFFORD. A copy is below. I extended to him a period of only 4 days to reply because Ms Petrus needed some answers and if the CEO wasn’t prepared to make arrangements to deliver some answers within 4 days, I would.

Dear Mr Herald

Re:      Merna Aprem

I have received instructions from Tanya Petrus to conduct investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of her 20 year old daughter, Merna Aprem.

Tanya has recently written to your Stephanie Forsyth, Executive Manager of Human Resources, who initially sent a letter to Tanya on behalf of AFFORD offering condolences.  In that letter of 25 June 2019, Tanya was simply asking for an explanation of the facts surrounding the death of her daughter. It is noted that Stephanie replied to Tanya’s correspondence however failed to provide the requested explanation to Tanya.

In circumstances where the mother of a young autistic woman also suffering epilepsy and who is now deceased, is seeking an explanation of how her daughter drowned in a bathtub whilst in your care, I find it disappointing that you have elected not to provide Tanya with a proper explanation regarding the facts surrounding the death of her daughter.

Tanya is devastated and not knowing the circumstances that led to her daughter’s death is having a detrimental impact on her health including her ability to properly grieve the passing of her daughter.

It is my understanding that by this stage, AFFORD should have provided a detailed account of the incident to your insurance company. Assuming that such an account has been provided it is unfair and inappropriate that you have failed to provide a version of events to the mother of the deceased.

It is widely reported that some organisations providing care as their core business are failing to deliver the care that they promise to deliver, yet are being paid vast sums of tax payer’s money solely on the basis of this promise to deliver. AFFORD received in the last financial year in excess of $40 million to provide care so that these incidents do not happen.

Thus far, AFFORD has not responded in a manner consistent with an organisation that is in the business of providing care. What is evident is the fact that AFFORD has reneged on their promise to offer every form of assistance to Tanya.

It is most unfortunate that this incident occurred, and it is most unfortunate that Tanya’s initial reaction was one of anger however it is understandable given the circumstances. Tanya is regretful of such actions however she needs answers to understand how exactly her daughter died.

What is critical is how an organisation responds to these events.

I would be most pleased to work through this matter with you for the mutual benefit of my client Tanya, your organisation, and the thousands of current and future clients of your care service. To that end I look forward to receiving an invitation from you to meet and discuss the matter generally on how to best resolve it once and for all.

As it is approaching almost 8 weeks since the incident and I would appreciate if you contact me prior to close of business on this coming Monday, 22^nd July.

Best regards

Tony Johns

****** Updated 20 August 1:45pm ******

The above letter to the CEO of AFFORD served a few purposes, but of major importance was the fact that I wanted to avoid at all cost any further stress to Ms Petros. This is why I wanted to meet up so we can bring resolution to the matter.

Ms Petros is in a fragile state. I was concerned any further stress could tip the balance. She has 5 other children to look after, no partner, no income and just surviving at best. This is a serious issue to consider.

For the benefit of those who are not aware of the process that is likely after a tragedy like this, I will explain it in some detail. It’s very important to know because it causes a great amount of trauma to the person making the claim including psychological damage and financial hardship. I for one, did not want to be pushing Ms Petros under a bus.

The insurance companies and their lawyers deploy a far too common tactic in order to minimise their payouts to claims and justify their huge fees at all cost. I call it a ruse and this was one of the very reasons I chose not to continue working for insurance companies over 20 years ago. A select group of doctors are in on it too in a highly paid supporting role. Generally these doctors won’t do the examination and court report for the insurance company or their lawyer unless payment is made up front while the claimant has to wait up to about 6 years!

Essentially with this ruse, the injured person seeking compensation is put under so much pressure that they just can’t bear it anymore. The insurance companies and lawyers do this just so they can force the claimant into receiving as little as possible compensation. It works especially good when the claimant is weak and vulnerable and already suffering psychological, emotional and physical damage.  If they are not weak and vulnerable, they certainly will be after the process of fighting to make their claim. Let’s look at the likely process that Ms Petros will encounter hereafter.

• Insurance investigators rush straight in after the accident and get the facts and all the witnesses too including signed statements. This puts them at a huge advantage right from the start. The injured person normally has none of these necessary items for court
• Liability is denied by the insurer
• It will take up to 5 or 6 years before you see a dollar.
• Along the way your lawyer will send you to many doctors for examinations who might write court reports saying you couldn’t work in an iron lung.
• The insurance company’s lawyers will send you to many doctors for examination who might write court reports saying things like you are fit to do a triathlon. There is a group of doctors that will write anything they can think up just to get continued and high priced work from the lawyers and insurance companies.
• The insurance company offers you peanuts if anything just before the hearing.
• After years of waiting on social security because you can’t work, but need to eat, the insurance company lawyers armed with the above mentioned reports from their doctors pressure you to settle for as little as possible and threaten to appeal the decision if you run the matter in court, putting you under more pressure to settle.

In this case, if the answers she is seeking indicated there was some negligence, Ms Petros may be due a compensation payment for damages. Those damages are likely to include a claim for psychological damages, ongoing medical costs and loss of income.

To give you an example, Ms Petros if she sues the party deemed at fault for negligence, she is likely to be forced to be examined several times over the years by one of the insurance company doctors or their lawyer’s preferred doctor,  that fall into the select group mentioned above.

Let’s take a brief look at a doctor that they might use. This doctor specialises in psychological damage assessment. Dr Wendy Roberts, psychologist of Neutral Bay and a favourite examiner for the insurance companies has been writing their court reports for many years.

Dr Roberts has been accused of many things including lying, drugging a patient’s drink (see Tor Neilsen case) and has allegedly designed a computer test that people making claims are forced to take in her office that can detect an insurance fraudster (you can guess the accuracy of the results of the test?), and the list goes on.

Read below what Dr Wendy Roberts said about Mrs Choi who, when in Hyde Park, was struck in the head by a branch and amongst other things, suffered a fractured skull with traumatic brain injury, and had a titanium plate inserted in her head. She had to have further surgery after experiencing continued pain and a “discharge” from her head.

 Dr (Wendy) Roberts said that Mrs Choi was exaggerating her impairment from the accident.

Could you image how Ms Petrus, who is suffering psychological damage, would fare if she went up against Dr Wendy Roberts for examination or someone similar after waiting 6 years for a fair trial on little to no income, and likely no ability to work.

I needed to protect Ms Petrus and her wishes to protect all the other clients at AFFORD and the very best possible way was to meet up, work out what went wrong (if anything) and fix it asap without the need to expose her to the stresses of a damages claim. Nevertheless I had given the CEO of AFFORD 4 days to respond to my letter to him and was looking forward to hearing from him.

****** Updated 21 August 10:50am******

On Monday, 22 July at 5pm the deadline I set for a response from the CEO of AFFORD had expired.

I then called Ms Petros and organised a meeting with her for 1pm the following day.

Finally some answers.

Given Merna drowned whilst in a care facility in a bath it was my view that quite possibly it was an accident. Accidents do happen. The carers for example could have been attending to an emergency because there was also a high needs client in the group home with another client making a total of 3.

On the contrary it was also possible that there could have been some grave errors. These were some of the things that Ms Petrus needed to know and had every right to know what happened.

You might recall that earlier in the matter when Ms Petrus asked me to find the answers for her, I declined and instead directed her to ask AFFORD because they had the answers. But, at that time and unbeknown to Ms Petrus or anyone else for that matter, I secretly conducted some investigations of my own by stealth and found some, but not all of the answers. I elected to keep that information secret for good reasons and sat on my hand and did not inform Ms Petros what I knew.

For reasons I shall explain later, I felt it was still appropriate that AFFORD should have every opportunity to provide an account of what happened not only to Ms Petros but to everyone else too.

AFFORD  were aware from media reports that Ms Petrus wanted answers and they did not contact her offering an explanation. They only sent a 2 line letter offering condolences a week later when the media released the story.

AFFORD still refused to say what happened despite Ms Petros sending a formal letter of 25 June and there was no Coronial Inquest or court case in progress, with the decision whether or not to conduct a Coronial Inquest to be considered in October.

Additionally, AFFORD by now would have provided a detailed account of what happened to their insurance company. Why could they provide an account of what happened to their insurers and not to the mother and everyone else too?

If AFFORD had nothing to hide, then why were they hiding?

So AFFORD refused to provide answers to Ms Petrus and suddenly the matter escalated with an investigator, one not under AFFORD’s instruction or under instruction from their insurers, but one acting for the mother of the deceased and one that AFFORD had no control over, suddenly asking questions.

I did mention earlier, in my posting of 20 August at 1:45pm that;

“The above letter (of 18 July 2019) to the CEO of AFFORD served a few purposes, …”

One of the other purposes was to let him know I was prepared to meet and resolve the matter once and for all. Thus he knew there was a way out. I also let him know that;

“What is critical is how an organisation responds to these events.”

The CEO knew this was critical and yet he had not responded to Ms Petrus, to the media, or to anyone. There seemed to be total silence. So he was in a bind now and I expected him to contact me.

The other purpose of the letter of 18 July was to try and flush out any insurance lawyers that might be lurking. After all, the insurance investigators would have to have been instructed by someone, and yes, by a lawyer in this case so they can claim “privilege”. That means the insurance investigator’s report can remain secret and cannot be obtained under subpoena, like in a damages claim. However, I suspect this rule does not apply when the hearing is in a commission, like a Royal Commission for example.

You will note in that letter I also wrote;

“Tanya is devastated and not knowing the circumstances that led to her daughter’s death is having a detrimental impact on her health including her ability to properly grieve the passing of her daughter.”

Although this statement was certainly true, I did not know if by knowing the answers, it would actually help Ms Petrus’s to ever recover. But I was certain this was something someone like an insurance lawyer and someone like our good friend Dr Wendy Roberts might seize upon.

Therefore, I expected contact from AFFORD within 1 day but provided 4 days to be safe given the weekend fell in the middle of the 4 days. But no contact was forthcoming by the deadline.

Also, to be certain the letter arrived at AFFORD and was not lost or delayed in the post, I personally delivered that letter to one of two receptionists working for AFFORD at 2:18pm on 18 July 2019. I took photographs at AFFORD’s head office when I delivered the letter, and sent SMS messages to Ms Petrus straight after the delivery also confirming date and time of delivery.

On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 1pm I therefore met with Ms Petrus and delivered the findings of my inquiries thus far on the strict condition that she would not reveal this to anyone for the time being. You should note the findings included but were not limited to the following;

1. A bathtub was half filled with water by one of the carers and she saw Merna getting into that bathtub at around 6pm on the evening of 23 May 2019.
2. This carer then went to prepare food for the following day.
3. The other carer on duty had bathed another client and then put her to bed and then went to the lounge room at the other end of the house watching TV (and possibly on her mobile phone too).
4. At about 6:30pm for reasons a check was made and no response was received from Merna and entry into the bathroom was attempted by the carer who was preparing food but she could not get in because the door was locked from the inside.
5. Despite being unable to gain entry, and being unable to receive a verbal response from Merna, no emergency services were called at this point.
6. The carer who was making food then called the other carer for assistance who at the time was in the lounge room watching TV. She then went outside to see if she could see Merna through the bathroom window, but could not.
7. It took about a further 30 minutes for the other carer (who was watching TV) to gain entry to the bathroom by using a knife to somehow unscrew the tiny Phillips head screws on the rose of the door locking mechanism.
8. Police and emergency services were called at about 7pm after entry was gained to the bathroom. Emergency services gave the carer instructions to drain the bathtub
9. CPR was not performed because Merna was deceased by this time and was found face down in the bathtub.
10. From the time Merna was last seen in the bathtub, at least an hour had elapsed until the next time she was seen where unfortunately she was deceased by that time.
11. The door knob on the bathroom door was such that it was a round knob and not “D” shaped as specified in the Australian Standards – Access for People With Disabilities.
12. The door knob was of the construction type with locking mechanism that could be locked from the inside, but not unlocked from the outside.

Read Part II – Click here

The post Part 1: Investigating Merna’s death appeared first on Inner Sydney Investigations.