Extradition September hearings Day 9 (Day 11 incl the Covid days)
On the video link to the Old Bailey.
Beginning of another important week.
Legal team taking their seats
Judge has started speaking but we have no sound
Sound up
Perhaps they have yet to bring JA up
Professor Christian Grothoff first witness via video
Prof of computer science, network security & cryptography
CG: I looked at the release of classified material that was not redacted, which I found on the internet. Material available to anyone who looked.
CG: David Leigh wrote in his book that he had the password to the encrypted files
CG: the file accessible to Leigh was encrypted. - inaccessible to anyone without the encryption key, which he included.
CG: using a key to share encrypted files is common practice
Once a file has been produced with an encryption key, it is not possible to change that key.
From November 2010 the media par5ners were publishing cables in redacted form
In Nov the Wikileaks site was under attack - a denial of service attack
The day after the redacted cables started being published, the attack took the form of an overwhelming request to the site
DNS server decided to terminate the service because the attack was affecting its other customers
Wikileaks encouraged people to put up mirrors (needs to explain...)
A mirror is another copy of the site. This is done frequently
.
The archive machine date... was around the time of the attack
The Archived page shows lots of mirrors all over the world
Showing lots of people copying the site
CG: Wikileaks posted instructions on how to mirror the site
This DID NOT as far as I know, enable people to access the encrypted files
Some of those mirrors created the unredacted cables but they were encrypted so not accessible
For that file, the password Leigh had would unlock it.
In Feb Leigh published the password than enabled decryption.
Wikileaks is not able to take those files down because those mirrors are not in Wikileaks control
Nor can they change the password. Nothing they can do.
Till 25 August, no one puts all this together until Die Freitag published that the Leigh book password would give access to encrypted files on the mirror sites
Nigel Parry (?) managed to access the encrypted files, then Cryptome, then others.
Summers asks CG to clarify Wikileaks had issued instructions on how to mirror the site but there were mirrors that had not followed those instructions. CG continues the list to find other sites who managed to access the deencrypted files & the Us govt also accessed the files via
One of these sites that had mirrors
Cryptome is US based
The materials are still available on Cryptome & other sites
CG: first I found that Wikileaks made this information available was 2 Sept 2011. Bu that time the material was already available on the internet & cannot be stoped, like pirated movies can’t be taken back.
Prosecutor (Smith I believe) btw Smith is extremely polite...:
When were you first instructed to be a witness? CG: around 8 Feb
Smith: you were given a statement from Cryptome by the Defence
CG: they also gave me the article from Die Freitag.
Summers asking him about all the docs sent to him by the Defence & did he rely on those docs.
CG says Die Freitag is important & that article is still available
Smith, not Summers, above
Smith: can you think of anything that might show you are not impartial here?
CG: JA published info about war crimes which makes him a sympathetic character but I did look for material that would contradict Wikileaks
Smith: you signed a letter to POTUS calling for the prosecution to be dropped
CG: I read letters carefully, if they are reasonable I sign,
SMith: “a step into the darkness”?
CG: it is a bad step for press freedom
Smith: you say it’s unfair so you are biased
CG: no you are confusing W efforts to conceal the encrypted files & you did not do your homework to find out who published the cables first.
CG: W were well known as being responsible publishers
CG: I believe publishing information about war crimes, with proper redactions, is journalism. My opinion was & is that W are responsible publishers.. no I don’t think signing that letter makes me not neutral in my investigation
Smith: so you forgot you signed the letter
CG: yes
Smith: did you download the Iraq files?
CG: Yes, from Cryptome
Smith: was the encrypted file on the W website?
CG: explaining interference by Domsheit- Berg which may have resulted in some mirrors containing the encrypted cables
CG: the weakest link is human.
Smith: the more people you give the password to they can duplicitously, maliciously, pass it on
CG: as Leigh did.
Smith: going to the prosecution bundle CG has no prob getting it up
Smith: the unredacted cables were being worked on by 50 human rights orgs, so 50 media & HR orgs
CG: IN PARTS they didn’t all have access to everything
Smith: Smith rephrases the question because CG has forced him to hone it
CH: only Mr Leigh’s action resulted in the publication
CG: JA was tight in his reluctance to give him the password
Right
JA was right in his reluctance to give him the password
Smith asking CG when Wikileaks would have been aware the password was in the book
CG: I don’t know but if they knew, they were perhaps trying to keep it quiet
Smith: looking at a shot of the W website taken in Dec, we can see they are encouraging others to go to mirrors to access the site.
CG: this is W creating a haystack, to obscure mirrors that excluded the encrypted file.
Smith: you assert this was a deliberate attempt to create a haystack but we don’t have the password issue yet
CH: they continued this after the password was published
Smith asking about specific cables released between 23-30 Aug, CG saying they would have been unclassified
Smith : did they contain names?
CG: I didn’t look at content, just classification
Smith: these cables were then released in searchable form
CG: what’s that got to do with it
Smith: so W emphasises when it releases cables in searchable form and Die Freitag doesn’t mentioned mirrors
CG: anytime you copy a file on the web, you mirror it. It’s technically called mirroring.
Smith: they don’t publish the password
CG: they hunt it is public
They say it is public
CG: W Disputed the Die Freitag story
Smith quoting W tweets cables are still being released & W making use of mirrors to do it, tweeting “including secret”
CG: you have to include those cables releases by media partners which include classified docs
Smith: who told you they were experts in deciding
CG: they are experts in journalism - a common presupposition
Smith: do you know who all the media partners given the cables are?
CG: no
Smith: quoting more W tweets announcing searchable form using mirrors. Since 30 Aug, we’re there names in cables labelled strictly protect?
CG: yes but some media partners made a different decision eg in Sweden
CG: Since the US govt did not go to the trouble of protecting these people’s names from tap large number of people who had access, you conclude it could not have been that important
CG: I did not find anything before 31 Aug
Smith: “Complete unredacted cables from Wikileaks” tweet by a third party
Smith asks CG to find a tweet about the unredacted cables on a mirror site. Break for 15 mins for him to find this tweet!
JA conferring with Gareth. CG finds it! “How do I transmit it?” No one can answer that. The judge is out of the room.
This witness knows his stuff. And again, Prosecutor Smith trying very hard to prove W were irresponsible, somehow.
Waiting for the judge
Much discussion in the room.. “ How long is it?” “Can you print it out?” “ Find someone who has decent handwriting”...
Judge back
Smith: dated 1sept at xx
CG: a different time zone. You have to take into account the time zone
CG: you can argue it was Sept 1st
Smith: I’ve got 5.58 & though have 7.58
Smith: go to Nigel Parry’s blog - the source material you site for Cryptome
CG: he has a Twitter account
Smith: Parry writes about his efforts to decrypt the password
Smith: parry says he discovered the password & tweets “its a bad day for David Leigh” & tweets where to find the password, he contacted W & they “sprang into action”. Parry hadn’t published the password. Where in Parry’s blog does it say Cryptome is publishing the password
CG: quotes Parry with the information Smith is referring to
This convoluted exchange is to establish the exact time of tweets,but of course it depends on your time zone. Summers objects saying Smith has made an error
So 10pm 31st somewhere is the already the 1st somewhere else ( ugggh)
Smith: now asking about another tweet by a third party to try to agree on timing.
Smith: Wikileaks tweet cited the paragraph from the book (sans password), after Parry tweeted it.
Smith: W tweet calls a global vote on whether they should release all the cables, on 31 Aug
Smith: On 1 Sept : the W poll continues, but the decision is taken to publish, on 2 Spt
W server was struggling to cope with the number of people looking at unredacted cables.. had a significant global reach.
Smith: “Help is purchase more capacity” tweet
CG: both Cryptome & XX published first & that is what is important.
Smith: W boasting of their “searchable” format
Smith: quoting Independent saying the W publication was more comprehensive & visible - do you agree?
CG: no not more comprehensive
10 mins break before Summers re examines
At judge’s suggestion, which was a good one as they could take the opportunity to confer.
Shot of JA on the split screen. CG smiles.
Summers: Leigh was one of the partners reviewing the material for redactions. Was anyone else of those media partners given the password?
CG: no & he was given it reluctantly after repeatedly trying t9 tease it out.
Smith: quotes Leigh telling JA he could be in an orange suit
Headed for Guantanamo Bay before he published the cables.
Summers: the material was on a temporary website, with a sword to encrypted data.. is that common?
CG: yes, some of the files for this court case is in encrypted files, banks encrypt some transactions.
Encrypted information is useless to the public
Before Leigh published the password, the encrypted information was private.
Summers: on mirrors... W encouraged others to mirror its site, a list of mirror W facilitated or encouraged
CG: they did not contain the encrypted file, unless W instructions were not followed.
CG: the mirrors that contained the encrypted file used an different software, so these did not follow W instructions.
Summers: relevance of hidden directories if you are mirroring a website, is it possible to pick up encrypted files?
CG: it depends... (fast explanation)
Summers now asking him how to tell whether there were unclassified cables among them.
CG: I looked at a sample but the number correlates to the number of unclassified cables
CG: unclassified cables are not marked Secret or Protect
Summers: would a name be included of someone who would be at risk?
CG: don’t expect that but I don’t know how US goes about things
Summers: challenging Smiths chronology : after the Die Freitag article on 25th, what was W saying on their Twitter feed.
CG: they said it was false & some parts may have been false but not the critical part
CG: following the Der Spiegel article, people put two and two together & told people what to look for
Summers: on 21st, Parry tweeted the location of the password
Judge interrupts him she doesn’t want to hear the chronology again & Summers says Smith got the chronology wrong
Summers: Smith suggested W tweet led to location of password.
Summers: on 31 Aug Cryptome has published the password, on 1st published the file;
Pirate Bay & NIVA also published
Summers: the Prosecution haven’t produced evidence for the material they are quoting from in their bundle
Smith stands to make the point that W was responsible for thru their tweets & editorial & reach
Summers: re the open letter - were you aware of any of the other signatures? This was something Smith asked too.
Summers: were you aware there were members of the German parliament, former US Army, FBI, judges, human rights activists.
CG: I don’t recall, it was years ago
Summers: The next witness who was scheduled for this morning was available til 1pm & is now on his way to the airport. The other witness for this afternoon may not need to appear because his evidence is not being disputed.
Judge wants a timetable. Summers says the next tranche of witnesses are medical.
Lewis suggesting written closing documents with each side have just one session (presumably to talk to their written submissions)
Fitzgerald says we won’t be able to fit it all in in the allocated time frame because of the two days lost due to Covid scare.
Lunch break.
So what is not disputed by the Prosecution, is that W was not first to publish the unredacted cables. The rest is about whether they amplified the unredacted cables.
That included
The Defence will have been trying to line up another witness for this afternoon, after all the very lengthy cross examination discussion about chronology of tweets took up the time allocated for the second witness this morning who is no longer available today.
Glimpse of Julian, wearing a tie, no jacket.
Next witness says Summers is Mr Worthington.
Lewis: he is very like el Masri so they could just read the statement. We had no notice he would be on today so could not prep.
Judge asks what Lewis would challenge about the account.
Lewis: if the statement is going to be considered as allegations, not fact.
Summers: main point is revelation that people were being tortured based on evidence from other prisoners. Detainee assessment briefs revealed.
Judge: are you asking me to make a finding?
Summers: yes I will invite you to recognise the finding that a finding has been made
Judge says she will not, reminds him that Lewis does not accept the international courts findings
Judge is asking if Lewis objects, he says the matter is irrelevant. Judge reiterates they should be coming to agreement on these issues.
Lewis is trying to make her rely on the courts decision without hearing the witness.
Summers: even if you have to make no findings about whether anyone was tortured, it is relevant that info disclosed by WL suggested that.
Judge well that is important. Asks Lewis whether he accepts that. Lewis: we don’t dispute that the cables have been interpreted by some people
To be evidence of torture, but the US does not accept there has been.
Summers: the other issue is who published the materials & in what order. Worthington will state Wikileaks was last to publish, the Telegraph & other media partners published first.
Lewis: we don’t except that
Summers: may I ask him the source of his understanding. The answer is the Senate but I need him to say it because it’s not in his statement.
Judge asks why the Prosec didn’t know Worthington was on today.
Summers because of Covid everything has has to be rescheduled & it’s been difficult to find witnesses for particular sessions. Judge asks for the remaining schedule as they only know the doctors are on over 3 days
Fitzgerald asks if he could have half an hour with JA, there is a possibility Cassandra Fairbanks might come this afternoon.
Judge again asks for a complete schedule
Judge: says we will hear Fairbanks statement after a half hour break but she wants a schedule. Fitzgerald says he needs the half hour to talk to JA & go thru the statement with Lewis to see what he disagrees with.
Convoluted discussion betw the judge & Lewis.Lewis makes the point that the witnesses are repetitive. Judge wants a list of witnesses statements for which there is agreement, quickly.
Lewis says sometimes it’s not possible to see why a witness is being called, they are witnesses
Of opinion, not fact.
Lewis: The number of witnesses is daunting & each one makes complex statements.
Judge wants a list identified so if they need to they will have to go thru each one & state the purpose or purposes for which they have been called, if that helps.
Half hour break
Fitzgerald had a two minute conversation with JA & we just saw JA being led out of the court room
Fitzgerald conferring with Peirce & Robinson
We have all been disconnected ... waiting
I hope we are not missing Cassandra Fairbanks statement
There is a break while they fix the connection
Now we have connection ... court has not yet resumed
Fitzgerald is with JA, Summers asking for the rest of the day to sort things out with the Prosecution.
Judge: will you be done by 4pm?
Summers: there will be some progress.
Judge Breaks till 4.
All the lawyers are back early..
Judge back but we don’t have sound
Fitzgerald: we all agree the statement of CF can be read.
Smith: don’t accept what she says is true, in particular what Schwartz told her, & she is partial.
Fitzgerald: we say her evidence is evidence of declared intention of those at the top so hearsay doesn’t apply.
Fitzgerald summarises the statement: it is an indication of the intention of the US. Judge wants to make sure Press is connected
Smith: the truth of what Arthur Schwartz told her is not within her ability to know is true.
Fitzgerald: Schwartz was an associate of Trump & Grenell.
She reports for a pro Trump site & supports libertarian causes.
She is in a chat group with Schwartz. She shared an article she wrote & Schwartz rang her to threaten her, telling her it would be the Manning case he would be charged with, that the US would be going in to the Emba
Embassy to get him, they will also pursue Manning over this.
She was shaken up & went to visit JA & told him. Later when all Schwartz said transpired I realised everting Schwartz told her was true. She visited JA again & was shocked at how she & JA was being treated at the Embassy.
She then asked Schwartz about something (too fast)
He said he knew she had told Assange, she realised later because they were being spied on. This is going very fast bit the statement will be released & we shall have to read it.
She says Schwartz informed her Grenell organised JA’s removal from the Embassy on orders from the President.
Schwartz told me he knew what I had told JA. The way I was treated at the last Embassy meeting is because they knew what I had told JA at the previous meeting.
Prosec & Defence have agreed she will not be called.
One paragraph will be edited. (So we prob won’t see the statement before that)
Prof Copeland (sp?) on all day tomorrow.
Finished for today
Ok so that is forensic psychiatrist Professor Michael Kopelman
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
‘For Israeli decision-makers, starvation of the Gaza Strip was in the cards from day one of the war.. 1. About 30,000 people live in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Imagine that the refrigerators of all Sderot residents are empty. In fact, they don't even have refrigerators. The bakeries are closed. The supermarket shelves offer nothing. Residents are hungry. And then, once every 24 hours, a single truck enters the city gates and distributes food, door to door. And the food on that truck? That's all there is, for the entire city.
About 30,000 people also live in Or Akiva. And in Arad. Each city gets one truck a day.
Will the residents of Sderot still be hungry by the end of the day? And what will happen after a week? And after a month?’ Cont
‘2. According official data from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, which is responsible for carrying out the government's civilian policy in those areas, an average of 71 trucks entered the Gaza Strip each day over the past month. Seventy-one trucks meant to feed 2.1 million people. One truck for every 30,000. Half of the trucks made it to a distribution center but the other half of them, brought in by the United Nations and various aid organizations, were looted en route.
It's a pitiful amount of food. But one can only wish the Sderot scenario was the reality in Gaza. The situation there is much worse.’ Cont
‘3. In Gaza, the truck does not distribute food door to door. Half of the food it carries is unloaded in large piles in remote military zones. The gates there open for just 15 minutes a day, according to a random schedule. You're reading that right: 15 minutes a day.
People loot the other half of the goods straight from the trucks. In both cases, those who manage to get to the food are almost exclusively young men, those who can carry heavy loads, run fast and are willing to risk their lives.
Over 1,000 have died so far while crowding around to get food, since late May, most of them from Israel Defense Forces gunfire.
What happens to those who can't make it to the trucks or the distribution centers? What about the women, the disabled, the sick, the elderly? What about the unlucky?
They are starving to death.’ Cont
Louise Adler in The Guardian: 🧵
‘One must acknowledge the remarkably effective Jewish community organisations in Australia behind the latest antisemitism report. Collectively, with their News Ltd megaphone, they have successfully badgered the government of the day, cowed the ABC, intimidated vice-chancellors and threatened to defund arts organisations.
With the ability to garner prime ministerial dinners, a battalion of lobbyists has gained access to editors, duchessed willingly seduced journalists keen to enjoy junkets and corralled more than 500 captains of industry to subscribe to full-page ads against antisemitism and thereby blurring political argument with prejudice and bias. It is no surprise that this relentless propaganda effort has paid off…’
On those forever quoted statistics on antisemitism:
‘16 students at Sydney University feeling intimidated by the slogan “from the river to the sea” was reframed as 250 complaints submitted to parliamentary inquiry. A childcare centre that was not in fact a Jewish centre was added to the list of terrifying antisemitic attacks. The individuals police believe were hired by criminals seeking a reduction in their prison sentences who allegedly placed combustible material in a caravan became a “terrorist plot”’’
The figures include all the ‘fake’ antisemitism attacks by paid criminals orchestrated by a crime figure not in any way driven by antisemitism, antiZionism or anti Israel motivation. As for the keffiyeh and the phrase from the River to the Sea, interpreting the symbols and slogans of another group as threatening while promoting your own as needing protection is one eyed and undermines social cohesion.
‘The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals…
The envoy wants to strengthen legislation apparently. Isn’t that the role of the government of the day? Who is to be the arbiter? Who is to be the judge, for example, of universities and their report cards? Who will adjudicate “accountability” in the media? Who will recommend defunding which artist? Should this government endorse this proposal, it will clearly be the envoy.
Fortunately, a suite of laws protecting us from racism, discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence are already deeply embedded in our civil society. No university is oblivious to these laws, no public broadcaster, no arts organisation.
Educating future generations about the Holocaust has long been a priority. I hope the envoy is aware of the work done engaging thousands of school students at such institutions as the Melbourne Holocaust Museum where my own mother was the education officer for over a decade. If the envoy is concerned that school students aren’t sufficiently well versed in the horrors of the Holocaust, she might take heart from such evidence as the sales of Anne Frank’s diary continue unabated, in the past five years more than 55,000 copies were sold in Australia.
The envoy helpfully proposes to nominate “trusted voices” to refute antisemitic claims – yet again seeking to prescribe who speaks and which views are deemed acceptable. One hopes that media organisations are resolute against the plan’s determination to monitor, oversee and “ensure fair reporting to avoid perpetually incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews”. It seems that the envoy wants to determine what is legitimate reportage. Freedom of the press is of less importance. Independent journalism that is factual and speaks the truth is lightly abandoned.

What is Australia’s proposed antisemitism plan – and why are some parts causing concern?
Read more
Universities appear to be on notice: adopt the IHRA definition, act on it or be warned that in March 2026 a judicial inquiry will be established as the envoy demands.
Cultural organisations be warned – your funding could be at risk too. There isn’t a cultural organisation in the country that doesn’t have well-argued codes of conduct for staff, artists and audiences – in place well before the 7 October attack to combat homophobia, racism and hate speech. Now it is proposed that a Jewish Cultural and Arts Council is to advise the arts minister. To privilege one ethnic community over others is deeply offensive and dangerous.’
And there I’ll stop because Segal’s shopping list is deeply offensive and dangerous.
Breaking
ABC changes its position and defence, now acknowledging @antoinette_news IS Lebanese . A recognition the race exists 🤦🏻♀️
Today’s hearing began with the ABC apologising for filing an unredacted affidavit revealing the name of a complainant.
Two own goals for @ABCaustralia
With respect to the very wise move to change their position on race in this case, I think it can be assumed Chair Kim Williams would have come down on management like a ton of bricks. He has been outspoken on change required at the broadcaster, and this catastrophic case is public confirmation of the rectitude of that position.
@ABCaustralia Currently Ahern being cross examined by ABC - he is held responsible for hiring Lattouf. Next today will be then Chair Buttrose followed by Green, her direct supervisor whose evidence will be an integral piece in the puzzle of what Lattouf was told, as she did the telling.
In light of the ongoing court case brought by @antoinette_news against the @ABCaustralia for unfair dismissal, it’s worth recalling her proposal to the ABC in order to settle the matter which I’ll post in a thread below.
Instead, the ABC decided to defend their decision, exposed in excruciating detail and at enormous expense to the taxpayer - we are funding the 14 month battle (so far) and the massive US law firm Seyfarth the ABC has engaged to fight it. It will be costing a fortune.
Here is what she had asked for to settle it months ago:
🧵
Fascinating day in court as @antoinette_news lawyer outlines content of emails between senior members of the ABC prior to her HRW post, the pressure they came under from the lobby group Lawyers for Israel from the moment she was on air, because of her known political opinions, their conclusion the position was untenable but that they could not sack her abuse she had done nothing wrong and for fear of the phenomenal ‘blowback’.
The manner in which she was sacked - called to a brief meeting and told to collect her things and leave the building did not follow the proscribed procedure under the enterprise agreement according to her lawyer.
Her sacking followed her repost of a HRW report stating Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.
Court adjourned briefly..
If you wish to follow, livestream here
Lattouf’s lawyer lists numerous additional complaints from the lobby group to the Chair and MD on the day she was sacked, and The Australian, which evidently knew of the complaints, called the ABC.
He says emails show ABC senior figures were sympathetic to the Israel lobby’s position.
A slide of AL’s post simply saying ‘HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war’ is shown - apparent this could not be construed as anything but a statement of fact, and in addition, with ABC news stories appeared on the HRW report prior to and after AL’s post.
Her lawyer refers to an unwritten expectation that ABC employees will not do at any time anything that may convey the view they are not impartial.
He says ABC claims it imposed on AL a bespoke rule (not to post about Gaza) and then sacked her for breaching that standard.
If Senior Exec Oliver Taylor asserts the post expresses an opinion, then the dismissal is because of her political opinions - ‘opinionated’ and ‘partial’ mean the same thing, so they hold the post revealed impartiality.
If Senior Management were agnostic on the Gaza issue, then they succumbed to a campaign.
Either ABC capitulated to a lobby or she breached a standard specific to her.
He says the ABC submission is long and an elaborate navigation for the ABC narrative, characteristic of a lawyers drafting, when there is ample material in the contemporaneous emails, in order to reinterpret clear statements in emails; the affidavits don’t deal with critical issues - who gave the direction and when? Her supervisor Green stated in their meeting that she did not give Lattouf a ‘directive’ not to post, she ‘advised’ her to avoid it. The complex affidavits don’t describe why the post was ‘partial’ - the post doesn’t appear in Taylor’s affidavit at all ie the very thing that was ostensibly the reason for the sacking.
Apropos communications, the ABC are prohibited from using Signal as they are subject to the Archives Act and can’t delete.
ABC Witness statements are he says replete with terms like ‘trust and confidence’, ‘impartiality’ etc
Oliver Taylor believes she was given a direction ‘bespoke to her’ not to post about Gaza, and her post ‘may’ have breached that direction.
He says the ABC justify not following their protocols for dismissal because a presenter can be removed even if she hasn’t done anything wrong (rostering change etc).
Lattouf asserts if she was not of the Lebanese race she would not have been removed in that way.
The ABC will assert says there is no evidence there is such a thing as a Lebanese race. The ABC lawyer rose - he objects to this being run as a discrimination case because it departs from the pleadings.
SAl’s lawyer says the issue is whether she was dismissed because of the HRW post, or because of objections to her political opinion by the lobby group and the Chair of the ABC.
Also, AL’s lawyer says that there could be no rational basis for Taylor to believe her post was a sackable offence. That the evidence she was given a directive particular to her was implausible given Green told management she didn’t issue a directive. Nevertheless, Taylor concluded a directive was given. And he thought there ‘may’ have been a breach of ABC social media policy.
1 of 2 for this morning session