Wednesday 6 November 2013

Colin Winchester/ David Eastman/ Veronique Ingram/ Corruption
So was it  just a lucky shot that  David Harold Eastman killed the AFP    Colin Winchester or was it something more sinister like a professional hit?

It appears Harold Eastman was troubled with the conduct at Treasury.
Did the AFP set up Eastman up to protect something more sinister that was occurring in Treasury?
It is a fact that Veronique Ingram who is now Inspector General in Bankruptcy and protecting systemic corrupt conduct and corruption at  AFSA or ITSA worked in Treasury.
Is there some connection between what Eastman was complaining about and Veronique Ingram?
Veronique Ingram and Adam Toma  have currently asked Nuckhley Succar and Nathan Potter of the AFP to protect   systemic corrupt conduct  and corruption in her Government Department..
Is there a connection?
Did somebody ask the AFP to protect shonky conduct and silence Eastman this way?

Solicitor-General Peter Garrisson, in his submissions, presented the arguments both for and against the judge’s ruling, acting as a “contradictor’’ to assist the court. But during the hearing the ACT government lawyers agreed Justice Marshall had misinterpreted the relevant section. The judge today said the Attorney-General “must not know what a contradictor means” and said the situation was an ‘’absolute disgrace”. He added it was “curious’’ the executive had the unfettered discretion to order a fresh inquiry. They have previously declined to do so.
The wording
The wording of Justice Marshall’s order for an inquiry came directly from the Crimes Act. He ordered “there be an inquiry into the conviction of the applicant for murder recorded on November 10, 1995”. He said there was a “doubt or question about whether the applicant was guilty of the offence”. Justice Marshall agreed there was a “significant risk that the conviction is unsafe because of the doubt”, and the doubt couldn’t be properly addressed in an appeal. “It is in the interests of justice that the doubt be considered in an inquiry,’’ the judge said.

No comments:

Post a Comment