I’m really going out on a limb here, but the evidence against Slipper does not stack-up. On balance Slipper is innocent of the charges made against him by former staffer James Ashby: engaging in sexual harassment and misusing cab charges. The application can be found here.
While I think Slipper is innocent, it was right that he stood aside from the speakership while the allegations against him are dealt with. Incidentally, Slipper in Parliament has been a very good speaker, although he was wrong to jump ship and do a deal with Gillard to begin with.
Let’s look at the first and primary charge of sexual harassment. The only substantiated evidence Ashby has are incriminating-like text messages that are meant to come from Slipper. Ashby claims that he had his mobile phone forensically examined to ensure that the text messages between Slipper and Ashby ‘were genuinely sent.’
However the forensic examiner is not listed; there is no mention of a forensic report for impartial study; and it is not clear why one would need a forensic report to determine if you had received and sent text messages. Your own mobile phone bill will tell you that. Furthermore, it is not clear from the application that Ashby still has the mobile phone with the text messages. One might implicitly assume that he does, but it is never explicitly stated in the application that the mobile phone is still around and will be presented to Slipper for his own forensic examination.
My assumption is that Slipper is using a government issued Blackberry. In any case the sms text limit is 160 characters. The following purported text from Slipper, as claimed by Ashby in his application, is 170 characters:
“;;)ok I do like you but must understand I get upset when you play with my enemies and keep me in the dark. It is not what I expect of someone I considered I am close to. If you find this intolerable please discuss”
Maybe Slipper sent two text messages or Ashby and Slipper are using some RIM technology. The application does not say. Generally for ease of following the message people try to keep the message to one text at a time. How about this from Ashby:
“DO NOT DO THE SOCIAL MEDIA INTERVIEW WITH CATHY. They are digging for a new angle. It will not be good!!!! The questions are laced with double meaning. It’s like answering the “do I look fat” question. There’s not right answer. The daily do not like u! U do not like them! I do not like them! Do not help them sell papers!”
That’s 260 characters. Note that before introducing the above quote the application states: “The Applicant sent the Second Respondent a text message from his mobile telephone at 5.44pm on 1 February 2012 in the following terms:” The last words being the key. It seems to suggest that the text was not quoted verbatim but ‘in the following terms.’ This in turn would contradict Ashby’s claims that he “has kept all the text messages”, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the messages sent and therefore by implication the verbal conversations claimed by Ashby with Slipper.
Everything else in the application relating to sexual harassment is heresy. The instances of dialogue within the application between Slipper and Ashby are not actual conversations, but stylised facts recalled by Ashby, in some cases from months ago. There are no eye witnesses to those conversations, recordings or journal notes kept at the time. If you were being sexually harassed don’t you think you would make a recording of the incriminating conversations? Or alternatively maybe at the time Ashby didn’t think he was being harassed. When did Ashby come to this realisation after all those months with Slipper? The circumstances seem somewhat sketchy.
The second and last issue is of the Cabcharges. Ashby claims that Slipper was handing out signed printed Cabcharges like confetti to drivers. The only way to verify these claims is via Slipper’s parliamentary expenses transaction report. The application does not mention that Ashby has a copy or intends to request a copy of this report. Given that Ashby was Slipper’s staffer he would have access to both the mobile phone and taxi statements. In any case, Cabcharge reports can be notoriously unreliable and I would have thought that Slipper would have a Cabcharge credit card. Anyone that has used the Cabcharge paper slips extensively knows how annoying they are to carry around.
Readers should not forget that Ashby has had his own trouble with the law. Back in 2002 Ashby was convicted of making threatening phone calls to a radio station and was placed on a three month good behaviour bond and fined $2000. In March 2012 Ashby threw a journalist’s phone into a bush during a press conference regarding Slipper’s expenses. I didn’t recall Ashby fessing up to the media then about any Cabcharge shenanigans. If the Cabcharge claims are true, what was Ashby doing this whole time? Lying to the media and the public to cover up fraud, and possibly his discretions in using Cabcharges? Maybe that’s why Ashby does not mention a financial expenses report in his application to the Federal Court.
UPDATE
Slipper has provided Cabcharge voucher receipts, which he says vindicates him against claims that he handed out empty Cabcharge vouchers to drivers.
UPDATE II
A close inspection of Slipper’s recently released Cabcharges has made me reassess my previous opinion piece on his innocence – embarrassing. I’m still not sure he is guilty, but it does not look good. We need more evidence. In any case, Slipper should do himself a massive favour and get a lawyer and shut up until the trial commences. In fact, Slipper should get his lawyer to do all the talking in the trial and just stay mute.
The receipts provided by Slipper were manually processed using Slipper’s Cabcharge card. He was not using the paper payment slips as I first imagined. Asking the taxi driver to run your card manually instead of electronically is highly unusual and would allow Slipper to scam the system. Essentially, the driver could pay Slipper some cash and then Slipper reimburses that cash to the driver via a manual transaction whereby one writes in the total. The problem with this explanation is that the same thing can be done electronically. The taxi driver can still enter in any amount he likes into the electronic terminal, which only leaves me more confused why Slipper only has non-electronic receipts for an electronic card. Maybe Slipper is just a clueless crook?
The taxi recieipts are not filled out with the appropriate detail on location. On one occasion Slipper takes a taxi from the airport to ‘suburbs’ and then back again. But then takes a taxi from ‘suburb to suburb’. Weird. However, as evidence goes I don’t think it proves Slipper guilty of a crime, unless the taxi driver is prepared to testify to that effect. I have taken many taxis for work myself, and at times I am fairly certain that I have messed up the location details as well.
The signatures are also completely different, which may tend to suggest that someone else was signing for him. Once again this may not make a lot of sense. Slipper could just have easily signed a bunch of receipts for the driver before hand, at least that’s what James Ashby claims in his Application. Or may be Slipper’s signature is not very good. I know mine isn’t all that consistent – especially when you are in the taxi with no desk and you want to get out quickly.
UPDATE III
One reader notes that he does not experience a 160 character limit on his phone. I know 160 is the limit for SMS txt, so may be RIM has a different messaging technology, or Ashby’s phone does not tell him when he is sending two txt instead of one. Just speculation at this stage.
UPDATE IV
Slipper keeps charming company:
THE limousine driver at the centre of the Peter Slipper taxi affair once admitted to licking a female passenger’s face, stealing from her and swiping her Amex card without her knowing, court documents show.
Still not evidence that will win a conviction against Slipper.
Slipper claims that the limousine/taxi service he used did not have electronic payment facilities. This could be demonstrated in court and would remove speculation that he used manual transactions for corrupt purposes. I’ve previously written that the manual receipts are a red herring anyway . A taxi driver can punch in any amount into the electronic payment terminal. As one reader alluded to, getting the GPS coordinates and related data for the taxi would be a better avenue, assuming the taxi company keeps that type of data.
Craig Emerson, Julia Gillard’s former man friend, has now waded into the battle.
Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson has accused Tony Abbott of using “weasel” speak to outline what his party knew of the sexual harassment allegations against Speaker Peter Slipper.
The irony.
