Veteran investigator Richard James examines KPMG Australia’s initial investigation, the Ashurst reviews and Allens’ Project Magenta — and explains why external does not equal independent when the client controls scope and evidence.
An excellent interview. Among many powerful moments, I highlight: "If you only speak to the people being accused and their colleagues, you are not investigating the allegations. You are testing their accounts against each other, which is a different exercise entirely.
“Insufficient evidence” should not be the end of the analysis if obvious evidentiary avenues have not been pursued. In that situation, it may describe what the investigation failed to gather rather than what actually happened.
The difference between the investigation that did not confirm it and the one that did was the willingness to look properly."
An excellent interview. Among many powerful moments, I highlight: "If you only speak to the people being accused and their colleagues, you are not investigating the allegations. You are testing their accounts against each other, which is a different exercise entirely.
“Insufficient evidence” should not be the end of the analysis if obvious evidentiary avenues have not been pursued. In that situation, it may describe what the investigation failed to gather rather than what actually happened.
The difference between the investigation that did not confirm it and the one that did was the willingness to look properly."
I agree - Richard makes some really insightful points. Thanks for the feedback Astrid :)