Since posting the very first blog in this series, Investigating Merna’s Death, I have always alluded to the existence of 2 disparate versions of the circumstances both before and after Merna’s death.
Of significance, it should be noted that it was also revealed that both versions could not be correct. Thus one version was a fake. It was fabricated.
Investigators know full well that more often than not, witnesses’ recollections of events, such as what they saw, heard, smelt, etc, differs widely for the exact same incident. The classic case of course is the police line-up. A lot of innocent people ended up serving lengthy sentences for crimes they did not commit. These errors however can be founded on genuinely faulty recollections of what really happened. People’s memories and interpretations of events make mistakes, especially after encountering stressful situations. This is not the case here though.
My grave concerns related to one particular version, the fake version. This version was transmitted via the internet and we were able to intercept a copy. There is metadata attached to the record and this metadata holds vital information.
One might ask how we know this version is the fake version and the other version not. The simple answer here of course, is that we have intercepted that other version too.
Let’s look at the fake version:
“Merna was in the lounge room when I arrived for my shift. She made an afternoon tea for herself and had her dinner later. After dinner I went to shower QQQQQ and heard the other staff calling my name for help. I had finished showering QQQQQ already so I left her in her bed and went to see the other staff. She told me Merna had locked herself up in the bathroom. I used the knife and forced the door opened. Upon opening the door, Merna was laying in the bathtub unconscious. I did CPR while the other staff called 000. The team leader and management members of AFFORD were notified and they came in their numbers. The police came and took over till the end of my shift.”
At first glance the sequence of events seems reasonable. It indicated that Merna was still alive and she was “unconscious” at the time. CPR was performed and of course this too is reasonable, because that’s what you do in these circumstances to try and save the life of the unconscious person. The sequence of events also suggests that it was Merna who locked the bathroom door. It’s reasonable to conclude that it all happened very quickly because the door was locked and Merna was still alive when the door was opened with the knife.
Some logistical questions sprung to mind, such as how does one perform CPR in a bathtub? Of course there can be a simple explanation for this. All in all it seemed to be quite a reasonable account at first glance.
An examination of the report of the incident from one of the carers on duty that evening indicated the following:
“I checked on QQQQQ and then went to make
her lunch. The other carer was sitting on the lounge watching TV. No one did
CPR because it was too late. We could not lift her out of the bath. She was
still in the bath when I left at 9:30pm because the police were waiting for the
scientific squad to arrive and take photographs.”
So there were two conflicting accounts as seen above. Readers of the earlier postings will know that I had already obtained information early on in my investigation of this matter indicating that from the time Merna entered the bathroom and the next time she was seen after the locked bathroom door was opened with the assistance of a knife, some 45mins had elapsed.
So the facts of the matter are that the CEO of AFFORD had a duty to find out exactly what happened for many statutory reasons. He also had a duty to ensure whatever went wrong was fixed immediately. It could have been a faulty power cord that caused electrocution or whatever, but it was incumbent on him to remedy the situation. He had to find out what happened, and I will submit that he did find out because if he didn’t then he could not remain in his position as CEO of AFFORD.
****** Update 1 June 2020 ******
Readers following this blog from the beginning will know that right from the get go we have suspected a cover up for good reasons.
This investigation is about finding answers including finding out who attempted to cover up the true facts of what happened on the evening that Merna drowned.
We found answers within the first few days of receiving instructions of what really happened, but did not reveal this to anyone, not even Tanya Petrus, until several weeks later when AFFORD refused Tanya’s written request seeking an explanation of what happened to her daughter.
Recently we released two conflicting reports providing alleged details of what happened. However we elected not to release the reports until we had addressed the following issues;
· What was the purpose of uploading a fake report onto the AFFORD computer system as an official record of the incident?
· Who authored the fake report?
· Who uploaded the fake report onto the AFFORD computer system?
· Did one of the carers write this fake report or did someone else do it using this carer’s login ID?
· Was the author the person who uploaded the fake report? Was the author one person or two different people, or was it a group effort?
· What was the date that the fake report was entered into the AFFORD computer system? One can record a date on a document but that date might not be the same as the date revealed by the metadata. A report can be backdated and uploaded at a later date.
· What device was used to upload the fake report onto the AFFORD computer system. Generally a device could have a SIM number (phone number) IP address and a MAC address.
· Where was the device when the fake report was uploaded onto the AFFORD system? ie was the device at AFFORD head office when the fake report was uploaded or elsewhere?
· Who was the owner of the device used?
· Was the owner of the device present when the fake report was uploaded? Devices can be confiscated or handed in and thus someone else could use that device during this period.
These are some of the issues we were faced with and issues that had to be addressed.
I did reveal on 23rd of August 2019 in a blog update that;
“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 23rd 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.”
At this time I chose not to reveal the reason why I desperately needed to know the AFFORD management’s official version of what happened because I wanted to establish who was behind the fake report, something that I did not know at that time and I wanted to know if it was them, the management.
The few days following the incident, AFFORD’s senior management met several times to discuss the matter. Casey Hailes was at these meetings. A few days later, Casey Hailes then provided an inaccurate and carefully worded account in a brief statement to the media shifting blame or any wrong doings from AFFORD and in fact suggested they (AFFORD) had not been advised of Merna’s seizures.
I also indicated that those engaging in a cover up could face criminal prosecution and this still is the case because very soon they will have their time under oath in the witness box where they can explain their conduct of the matter, including the reasons for making a false report.
Readers of the earlier postings in this blog will also note I reported that on Wednesday, 7 August 2019 both Tanya and I met with the CEO of AFFORD, Mr Steven Herald, the HR officer, Ms Stephanie Forsyth, and accompanying them was a lawyer, Lucinda Lyons of Clyde and Co.
We were at a loss to understand the need to bring a high profile insurance lawyer to the meeting, one who makes money by fighting to deny insurance claims, when the agenda was to offer an explanation, at AFFORD’s invitation, to explain how Tanya’s daughter drowned whilst in full-time care at AFFORD.
In hindsight it was a blessing and I am glad that the lawyer was present. AFFORD’s own lawyer witnessed the false account that was put forward at this meeting by the CEO, Steven Herald….”it happened in a split second……and they opened the door with a knife, as you do..” The AFFORD lawyer has pinned the CEO, Steven Herald to the fake report. Lucinda Lyons was there when he delivered the fake account of what happened and from an investigator’s position, it was very suspicious indeed that the AFFORD lawyer did not want to discuss the matter when I wrote to her.
Readers should recall that I wrote to lawyer Lucinda Lyons the day following that meeting on Thursday, 8 August 2019 informing her that the version of events that Steven Herald gave at our meeting was “far removed” from the findings of our investigations. Did Lucinda Lyons as lawyer for AFFORD raise this issue with Steven Herald? Did she write to him and say that the investigators are concerned with your version of events not being the truth? Or was she there to assist in the cover up? Like me, the readers can make their own conclusions here.
Ross Fowler, as chairman and director of AFFORD, has special responsibilities and accountability by law. We do know that he, Ross Fowler, communicates with Steven Herald in relation to fund raising, special events and the handing out of awards. I am hopeful that whilst these two are communicating about awards and the like, that Steven Herald also communicated to Ross Fowler about the deficiency AFFORD has in meeting the safety standards required by law for the many AFFORD premises both in and out of the Penrith jurisdiction. I am also hopeful that Ross Fowler, as chairman and director took the responsibility to ensure that every AFFORD home met the Australian safety standards. He certainly has many building inspectors at his disposal. It was reported to us that many AFFORD homes, after the Merna incident, had the doorknobs on their bathrooms changed so they met the Australian standards. Why this did not happen before the premises were occupied by clients with disabilities is a clear breach and failure on the part of management. Safety should be paramount. Why safety standards were not met in the Penrith local area when the Penrith mayor is chairman and director of AFFORD needs to be addressed, especially by him.
We are endeavouring to find out if Steven Herald conveyed to Ross Fowler the fake incident report as the true account of what happened and we will keep the readers posted on the outcome of this.
It is fact that Steven Herald made the choice to deliver to Tanya (and myself) the fake report of what happened on that evening when Merna drowned in an AFFORD bathtub over and above the choice to deliver the truthful version.
This brings us back to the original investigations that were earlier on focused on finding out the source of the fake report. How could it be that there is a fake report in existence and of all people, the CEO, Steven Herald is not only in possession of it, he is offering it as the truthful account of what happened?
Thus, we can safely assume the AFFORD CEO, Steven Herald knows the author of this fake report. We can also safely assume that he knows the author of the correct and truthful account too. He can safely assume that we know why he chose to provide a fake account and not the real version of events.
Further updates will be made soon
2 thoughts on “Part V – The Fake Report”
This is very concerning and I am angry at the deviance over this girl’s death in care I gave a nonverbal son who was injured in respite care and it was covered up also I want cameras in disability houses as police said to me without that evidence there is no crime. I said what if he died is it still not a crime? There was silence from the police inspector.
Dear Anndrea
Thank you for sharing your story. I’m sorry to hear that your son was injured and I do hope he has recovered. By the limited information you have provided there are undertones that there may have been foul play suspected, hence your attendance on the police. I am assuming that the police have interviewed the carers involved in your son’s incident and made the conclusion that they needed more evidence to proceed. That is why so often policing is such a tough job, because despite how obvious a situation may be, they still need the evidence to prosecute. In the Merna Aprem case there is evidence to indicate that those who sell care care services, and widely advertise that they provide the very best care, don’t care at all. Actions speak louder words!