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.