Denial and 'in Denial'
Police and investigators usually don't need admissions from an accused to take action on a case, the accused is usually given the opportunity to reply to the allegations as a matter of courtesy. Frequently the response of the accused are something that the investigator can predict, especially experienced investigators. Most of the time I spent in that realm was interviewing people who knew 'the jig was up', some were repentant, some were silent, but the one that annoyed me was the accused that was in denial. They'd go to their death demanding that they only did "what anyone else would do", or that they were "being railroaded", or worse that what they did "was not wrong/illegal". As an investigator who had full knowledge of the 'brief of evidence' that was particularly frustrating, not that it made any difference, but it was sure to cause complications later on for the accused and the victims.
Responses by Julia Gillard
Julia Gillards' obfuscatory statements made in response to questions from the Media and Parliament are an insult to those asking them and to all Australians. She is stonewalling, she hasn't yet been required answer questions (i.e. like during a Royal Commission), but to allege that she has answered them when all she has done is change the subject is frustrating. Having made mention of a "Royal Commission", I have seen the proposed 'terms of reference' posted by Tony Abbott, and they are too narrow. They don't include the "Boulder Death Benefits" scheme in which up to a million dollars went missing. The investigation into the AWU affair and Gillards' role in it aren't over, so who knows where it will lead. Gillards' method of dealing with the questions only serves to frustrate those asking the questions and those (like me) who are interested in the case. I just wish she'd shut up, it's annoying watching her not answer questions.
Comments