❓ Question on Notice regarding the forgery investigation involving the Member for Southern River and her electorate officer. The investigation's status is unclear, fingerprint analysis was limited, and signature analysis deemed insufficient.
AnsweredQoN 152Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MEMBER FOR SOUTHERN RIVER, FORGERY INVESTIGATION
(1) Is the forgery case involving the member for Southern River and her electorate officer still open, or has the investigation been completed and closed, as some people in the media were told yesterday? (2) Were fingerprint samples taken from the member for Southern River and her electorate officer, Robyn Parkes; and, if not, why not? (3) If so, did the fingerprints from either suspect match those found on the forged resignation letter? (4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE
(1) Is the forgery case involving the member for Southern River and her electorate officer still open, or has the investigation been completed and closed, as some people in the media were told yesterday? (2) Were fingerprint samples taken from the member for Southern River and her electorate officer, Robyn Parkes; and, if not, why not? (3) If so, did the fingerprints from either suspect match those found on the forged resignation letter? (4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(2) Were fingerprint samples taken from the member for Southern River and her electorate officer, Robyn Parkes; and, if not, why not? (3) If so, did the fingerprints from either suspect match those found on the forged resignation letter? (4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(3) If so, did the fingerprints from either suspect match those found on the forged resignation letter? (4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(2) Were fingerprint samples taken from the member for Southern River and her electorate officer, Robyn Parkes; and, if not, why not? (3) If so, did the fingerprints from either suspect match those found on the forged resignation letter? (4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(3) If so, did the fingerprints from either suspect match those found on the forged resignation letter? (4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(4) Were any fingerprints found on the forged letter; and, if so, to whom did they belong? (5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(5) Why have police not requested signature samples from the member for Southern River and Robyn Parkes, given that both were directly asked by detectives whether they forged the resignation letter? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(1) The primary investigation has been completed. As I told the House yesterday and in line with my undertaking, I discussed this matter, among other things, this morning with the Commissioner of Police at our regular weekly meeting. I made the point to the commissioner that it was a matter of public interest and asked that a proper and thorough investigation be carried out. He assured me that it will be. Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Dr Gallop: Is it closed or not? Yesterday you told us it was finished. Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr PRINCE: I just said that the primary investigation has been completed. I then said, as I told the House yesterday, that I would raise the matter with the commissioner. I have done that, and the commissioner has said that a proper and thorough investigation will be carried out. Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr Ripper: So, far from our action hampering the investigation, our action has seen the investigation reinvigorated. Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Mr PRINCE: Not necessarily. That is a matter for the police. (2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(2) No. The handling of the document is not in issue. (3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(3) Not applicable. The fingerprints were not taken because the handling of the document is not in issue. (4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(4) Yes, fingerprints were found. It has not been determined whose fingerprints they are. (5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
(5) The forensic advice to the police from their own experts is that the signature itself is not sufficient for anybody to conclusively make an identifiable comparison. I understand that is because there is not enough handwriting - the signature is very small - to be able to make a meaningful comparison with any other sample of handwriting. Had the whole letter been handwritten, it would be a different situation. There is not enough handwriting for a conclusive identifiable comparison to be made.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.