ozsoapbox:
Wasn’t the Defense Department inquiry solely into the claims of bullyng during McBride’s time in the army though?
From memory it had nothing to do with the church of Scientology or any possible involvement in the suicide. If O’Kane is talking about the Defense inquiry why would she feel that she couldn’t comment specifically on Scientology.Unless of course the Defense inquiry is going to look into the Scientology side of things. I’d have thought a Defense inquiry into possible bullying and an inquiry in Scientology and McBride’s auditing would have been unrelated.

Because of the Defence Inquiry, the Coroner has not closed HIS inquiry.

The second document pretty much validates from the inside many of the critical observations made from the outside.

The role of Auditing has yet to be determined, but the case of the woman who jumped to her death in Sydney after a rebirthing/primal session must be worrying O’Kane.

Naturally the DD is going to dump it all on the CoS if at all possible, and given O’Kane’s move out from under the protective wing of he CoS, my money is on the DD.

The Defence department was to hold its own inquiry, commencing mid-October 2009. So, the Coroner issued his findings as an interim report, pending the outcome of the Defence Department inquiry.

Wasn’t the Defense Department inquiry solely into the claims of bullyng during McBride’s time in the army though?

From memory it had nothing to do with the church of Scientology or any possible involvement in the suicide. If O’Kane is talking about the Defense inquiry why would she feel that she couldn’t comment specifically on Scientology.

Unless of course the Defense inquiry is going to look into the Scientology side of things. I’d have thought a Defense inquiry into possible bullying and an inquiry in Scientology and McBride’s auditing would have been unrelated.

Note that Marty Rathbun also commented in this “Lise O’Kane” post:

/=====
martyrathbun09 // December 24, 2009 at 12:38 pm | Reply

Living Life, I have studied tomes of publicly available, and as yet not publicly released, information including the lengthy coroner s report.
Your comment contains at least two assumptions not backed by evidence.
So, I suggest you do as you assert you do, I look not listen. I stand
by my post. I think you ought to read it more carefully.
\=====

Did Australian authorities have also access to this “as yet not publicly released” information?

I wonder if this hacking episode ended up also being sorta convenient to a few people – given the questions raised here.