The evidence that I was not responsible for the fire is indisputable, PC data, verifiable by any competent expert proves that no REMOTE IGNITION took place and we were 400Km away from the fire scene.
Continuing to decline the claims in the face of this evidence would be seen by all as PURE EVASION BY IAG
From 400Km away to be guilty of arson I needed to remotely ignite the fire, Jorgensen had proved that NO Print Command was issued on the day of the fire and this was relied on in all the theories put forward in the case.
I was ACQUITTED, proven not guilty, leaving the stated reasons IAG still
makes for not meeting the claims exposed for what they are -
of Valid Insurance Claims.
Here apparently, we have IAG's lawyer, Chris Hlavac writing or heavily editing the report attributed to Jorgensen who would later give evidence as an independent EXPERT WITNESS swearing he produced it and it was his expert opinion.
What’s more, the evidence is almost all FALSIFIED, it is not supported by any computing authorities and comprises of large volumes of technobabble obviously inherited from Jorgensen's original report!
HLAVAC is seen here interfering or creating the evidence!
Following the Double Cross post, we have seen a steady increase in visitors to the blog.
Yesterday, 9 August, 436 unique visitors viewed over 1,200 pages of our damning information on the way IAG have handled our fire claims.
Loads of this traffic is coming through the Search engines, Google, Bing and many others and most of the visitors are from Australia and New Zealand.
These lads could just walk into a Police station and admit to causing the fire that destroyed our house, if they have some evidence then the Police cannot just ignore them. If they are arrested for Arson then IAG are in a difficult position, they found no accomplice evidence in 2011 and they wouldn’t find any link between me and these guys, there isn’t one!
'Caveat emptor' often called the 'Buyer beware principle' is acceptable if the information that would make the buyer aware is possible to find but again, in our case, the Government removed all negative comments in the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) for orchard properties under pressure from land owners in 2004.
IAG had made an offer to settle the case, not great but frankly it was real progress. We had long discussions, should we reject it and bargain for a fairer deal or just accept it and get on with a new life. The decision was easy after almost 7 years.
On 26 June I set a letter to the Directors of IAG personally asking them, 'Do they accept and condone the illegal actions of their investigators and lawyer?'