The UnAustralian

Monday, May 12, 2003
Hindmarsh Island II

Having just done some introductory googling to investigate Hindmarsh Island a bit more, I've just found this 1998 article by Ron Brunton. It's very congratulatory, and works on the assumption that the secret women's business was a lie. One of his sources is Dr Phillip Clark.

From the semi-recent court case, the judge wrote (on the topic of Dr Clark):

When the Royal Commission was announced he claims to have taken a role and provided information that influenced the course of the Royal Commission in a way that I consider lacks professional objectivity and was inappropriate. I am not satisfied that Dr Clarke has fairly and objectively considered whether the reasoning and interpretation of research materials relied upon by others may leave open the possibility that his opinion is wrong.

I'm not a lawyer, but this strikes me as pretty damm harsh.

With this sort of statements being made about people who are pretty central to his case (and more from the judgment - once again check out Ken Parish's post), I wonder if Brunton is planning to alter some of his original views. Judging by this article, I think not.
| 7:44 PM