Razor turn to questions about the evidence of a witness named Sue Clayton, a young woman involved in youth activities in the Anglican Church and its youth activities in the 1980’s. One day in 1986 or 87 – there is some dispute about the year – Clayton visited Aspinall at home and told him that she had information about serious misconduct by his mate Lou Daniels toward young boys, and that she had passed the information on to the Bishop, who of course was none other than Bishop Newell, he of the sons who give identical word-perfect statements to Royal Commissions without ever providing instructions to their solicitors.
Dr Phil confirms that Clayton told him these things, but refutes any suggestion that she told him that the misconduct was of a sexual nature. Once more he can’t rule it out, but is 99% certain that she did not mention sexual misconduct.
Young boys. Youth Group leaders. Misconduct.
WTF else could Dr Phil have thought that she was talking about?
The next thing he says is curious, because Dr Phil says that he was puzzled by Clayton’s information, because he had never seen any such misbehaviour by Daniels during their long and extensive friendship and personal and professional relationship.
What’s he talking about? How can he say he had never seen such behaviour when he has just seconds ago told us he wasn’t told what the behaviour was?
Simple answer – he couldn’t.
Dr Phil is lying.
And Razor knows it too.
She asks him again what Clayton told him, and he once more says that she simply said that she had evidence of misconduct by Daniels, and most certainly did not tell him any of the details of the alleged misconduct.
But once more he raised doubts about the veracity of his evidence, because he goes furtrher and says she didn’t tell him because she wanted to protect the privacy of the young boys involved.
He’s clearly not from Geebung our Dr Phil, because if he was then he would well understand the adage of loose lips sinking battleships, and would be answering yes, no, maybe rather than have his lips flapping like a galah.
Why would Sue Clayton wish to protect the privacy of young boys who had been the subject of misconduct by Daniels? Even a blithering idiot could work that one out, surely.
Razor hammers Dr Phil with questions about his knowledge of sexual misbehaviour by Anglican Church officials, staff and clergy during his time in Tasmania.
He denies all and any knowledge of what the deviates he hung out with got up to. Doesn’t know a single thing, nothing at all.
Perhaps Dr Phil was blind, and then just as it was in his beloved Holy Bible the Good Lord came along and cured him, and now he can see.
His evidence is so goddamn amazing Gracie that I can’t think of any other alternative that could explain it.