He may be long gone from the political scene, but former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews just can’t seem to stay out of the headlines – and he can still rely on the lickspittle Melbourne media to have his back. Especially when it comes to the cover up over a 2013 crash that nearly killed a teenage cyclist.
The cover-up asserted is a favourite rumour on Spring Street – how former Labor premier Daniel Andrews and his wife, Catherine, supposedly got away with hitting a teenage cyclist with a government car 12 years ago. Andrews and his wife deny any wrongdoing […]
Long after police closed the case without finding driver fault, and an anti-corruption probe cleared those police of wrongdoing in their investigation.
The Age is lying through its teeth here. In fact, a detailed assessment by a former police assistant commissioner – not ‘amateur sleuths’, as the Age sneers – found the complete opposite. He explicitly called it an overt cover-up.
The expert review, conducted by the state’s former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations Dr Raymond Shuey, concludes the police investigation which supported the Andrews’ version of events was “deeply flawed”, “unfounded” and “contrary to the available evidence”.
“The version as provided by Catherine and Daniel Andrews is considered improbable and implausible,” Dr Shuey asserts.
“The truth is still outstanding […] It is most probable that the vehicle undertook a sweep turn at speed, cutting the corner and still on the incorrect side of the roadway… when the collision occurred.”
As for the police investigation, Shuey called police actions ‘inexcusable’ and directly questioned why an unnamed female police officer who was nowhere near the accident insisted on taking over the investigation from police on the scene – and didn’t leave the police station for another six and a half minutes.
“This raises critical questions as to why ‘the senior constable’ (name redacted) wanted to take over the call and cancel a unit already en route. What external communications via telephone or radio with ‘the senior constable’ occurred in the time from the crash to being en route? […]
It is my opinion that this deception is part of a course of conduct and a component of an overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash. Failure by supervisors and reviewers to identify this or seek explanation is inexcusable.”
So, what’s the Age’s angle? Besides peddling disinformation, that is.
Misdirection and well-poisoning fallacies.
Now, with the case about to be ventilated in a civil courtroom this year, as the Meulemans sue their former lawyers Slater and Gordon over Ryan’s compensation deal, The Age has discovered new links between the campaign and high-profile Liberals, as well as far-right agitators still railing against Andrews-era COVID lockdowns, such as Avi Yemini.
The campaign has been backed by now-Opposition Leader Brad Battin, and today enjoys fundraising help from Liberal heavyweights such as former treasurer Andrew Abercrombie and recently returned MP Moira Deeming.
So what? None of this makes the allegations of a cover up therefore untrue. This is just more desperate attempts to cover up, from a mainstream media not only intent on still licking Andrews’s boots, but who seethe with hatred toward new media journalists like Avi, mostly because he did the job that they refused to do in exposing the corruption and brutality of the Andrews government.
Note this splendid piece of deceit:
Former lawyers for the Meuleman family have raised concerns the campaign is no longer about Ryan’s best interests. The Age has confirmed the Meuleman family is not in control of the funds raised, and a small “steering committee” of external advisers has been driving litigation decisions.
Why are they ‘former lawyers’ for the family?
“There was a case but counsel and I didn’t agree with the direction it was taking and those purportedly advising Ryan,” says George Defteros, a lawyer for high-profile gangland clients and who spent about two years on the suit.
Just as the case was nearing a critical moment last year, Defteros and his legal team say they were dumped for barrister James Catlin, a former adviser to Liberal premier Jeff Kennett.
So, the family simply found better lawyers?
As for the claim that the family ‘is not in control’:
In a rare interview, Ryan Meuleman, now 27, tells this masthead he feels “in control … pretty much calling the shots” in the campaign. “I’m not worried about that.”
The rest of the Age’s lengthy Jeremiad can be boiled down to a simple, fallacious argument: it’s all untrue, because the people saying it’s true are a bunch of big meanies who just don’t like our Dan.
According to Ryan’s father, Peter, though:
Really, I’m not the angry, bitter father with an axe to grind. I’m not [a] Liberal. I’m just trying to get the best for my son. And these good Samaritans, regardless of what their agenda might be, they’re helping our family. That’s all that matters to me.
If that means exposing the (allegedly!) most corrupt Victorian premier since Tommy Bent, then so be it.
