May 24, 2003


A point not explored in this piece on the Hollingworth case is that Hollingworth and the Anglican Church are likely to seek costs from the law firm that represented Annie Jarmyn. Considering the number of lawyers involved on the Hollingworth side - ABC news radio reported yesterday that they couldn’t all fit on the same bench, or table, or whatever - these costs could be seriously good. I mean, seriously big. Yes, big is what I meant.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 24, 2003 03:35 PM

I know nothing about this case or the people involved, but has anyone at any of Australia's outstanding newspapers performed the Journalism 101 act of attempting to find any other evidence that Hollingworth was at this summer camp, ever-- such as anyone else who remembers him, or any reason to believe that he could have had ANY connection to it then or would have been likely to work there? At least the women who alleged such things about Bill Clinton could show how they knew him before it came down to he-said she-said.

Posted by: Mike G at May 25, 2003 at 01:43 AM

What!!!!. Salivating Aussie Media Lefties checking the facts before rushing out a story. I'd like to see that.

Posted by: aussieoldfart at May 25, 2003 at 01:02 PM

Hey Timbo,
Does this mean you support someone can allege they were raped by someone but not have the guts to make it public.
you also support someone in high places can put a suppression order on a suppression order?

Yes I can see how a 'conservative' can support that!

Posted by: Homer Paxton at May 25, 2003 at 03:10 PM

1. Many media outlets tried to establish whether Hollingworth was at the camp in question. The overwhelming weight of evidence supported his contention that he was not. Salivating Aussie Media Lefties my arse, it only shows you don't read the papers.

2. Hollingworth and the Anglican Diosces of Bendigo and Ballarat both indicated at Friday's hearing they would not be seeking costs from the Jarmyn family.

Posted by: Journo Dave at May 26, 2003 at 12:11 PM