10 Hours of Bullshit

So Abbott has been caught with his hand in the conspiracy jar & the first place he decided to go was with the IT problem angle. Having worked in the industry for a long time (almost 20 years), I felt it was my duty to explain how Abbott’s line that “during April the computer server timestamps were sometimes out by up to 10 hours” was wrong, & why it was at best improbably, at worse, impossible.

Let’s take this on face value: the Australian Parliament House (APH) network, like most corporate & government networks, is a complex beast. Spanning politicians on all sides of parliament & public servants alike, security is paramount. To maintain the level of security in APH time is essential.


Kerberos negotiations (Daniel Sonck)

Kerberos negotiations

If you work in IT, you know that setting a clock even 1hr out your network will fall over, the tolerances for Windows Server is 5 minutes difference in time. Even if you set a different timezone, Windows Server will not accept login credentials from a client computer if the time is more than 5 minutes out.

This, however, is not what Abbott is claiming. He is claiming that the SERVER was out by 10 hours, which means the WHOLE of the APH network should have been out by 10hrs. This is obviously not the case, otherwise this massive IT failure would have cause chaos during April 2012 in APH. You would have thought such a massive administrative failure would be headline news, not unlike the recent transition from Exchange to Office 365 that exposed calendars of politicians.

So how could the time be set wrong if all these boxes are ticked? Well, there are two ways: when the server was initially set up the person doing so just clicked through rather than reading the prompts, this, however, would give the system a -8:00GMT (US Pacific) time zone, not GMT (10hrs out). The other way is for a domain admin like myself to set the Active Directory (AD) server to 10 hours out & attempt to propagate it across the network. This will mostly not work as AD updates in 15 minute increments & the time is synchronised during this phase. If the servers connected to the AD server are out by 10hrs, they will not synchronise as the Kerberos Server (Windows Server’s authentication protocol) will reject their authentication requests.

The last ditch effort for Abbott would be the files being created locally on a computer that’s 10hrs out, then moved to the files to the server. This, however, would still show the actual time of creation according to the server time zone, not the client. Add to this, Abbott would not have been able to connect to the network if his laptop was 10hrs out.


According to separate reports, the time the documents could be created are 11:08pm or 11:32pm. Considering the document was sent at 9:17am the next day, if the clocks were 10hrs out, that would mean the document was created, typed up, & converted to PDF 9 minutes before being sent out, or, it was created AFTER being sent. Something doesn’t match up here, & I’m sure email, server, & support ticket logs will show that the documents were indeed created prior to The Australian publishing the story the press release was in relation to.

So what does this mean? Well, Abbott is both lying & embroiled in the Ashby affair. We know that Brough, Pyne & Bishop have all played their part in this, so how could Abbott not be involved? He has already shown contempt for democratically elected politicians with his Australians for Honest Politics slush fund, the Ashby case fits the same modus operandi.


Abbott’s attempt to use technical excuses in the Ashby/Brough affair shows that he is not only heavily involved, but it’s clear he is trying to cover up his involvement in a conspiracy to bring down a sitting member of parliament, & the legitimate government of Australia.

Seeing as there are no journalists willing to run forensics on these files, I have requested to see the PDFs, documents & emails from said journos. I will update this post as more information comes to light.

PDF date formatting

Notice the difference, & the times Abbott’s PDF was edited.

[UPDATE]: I have obtained PDFs edited on 23/04/12 (after the press release) & it seems the timezone information has been modified to show it as UTC on the 23/04/12 at around 9:30am. By default MS word outputs PDFs in local time as you can see by the following image. The top one is Abbott’s press release, the bottom from a PDF I just output from MS Word.

[UPDATE2]: To clarify, the top dates are from Abbott’s PDF & clearly show that 1) it was created in MS Word, which only supports LOCAL time zone dates, & 2) that the “Created On” date has been edited to have a “Z” (UTC) instead of “+10’00′” as the “Modified Date” shows. This is a glaring discrepancy & shows that the documents were edited before being submitted to APH. Even if this is the case, the 2nd document sent in the press release would have to have been created AFTER it was sent if the time zone was indeed UTC.  I have tested to see if a document created within UTC time zone would output with a Z as the time zone code, it will not when exported for MS Word, the time zone code defaults to “+00’00′”, the only time you will get a Z time zone denotation is if you export via Adobe Acrobat itself & not with the Microsoft Word PDF export. We can clearly see this is not the case from the “PDF Creator” & “PDF Producer” line.

Keep the tweets coming in if I’m not clear enough, but this is getting way out of layman’s terms.

PDF from 20/04/12 by user mcdulingg

PDF from 20/04/12 by user mcdulingg

[UPDATE3]: The PDF created by the same user (mcdulingg) submitted from the day before clearly shows “+10’00′” (AEST) time zone. So that’s that, the date has been modified on the 23/04/12 to attempt to show the time zone as UTC.

[UPDATE4]: It seems some detective work by ClarenceGirl over at the North Coast Voices blog has unearthed some interesting information (cheers for the tipoff):

Abbottâ??s maths just donâ??t add up. In endeavouring to explain away what at first glance appears to be a pre-emptive media release, he forgets to check the Internet and therefore does not discover the fact that his Statement on Peter Slipper MP media release is quoted in the published transcript of an 8am radio show a whole 1 hour and 10 minutes before the revised time he gives for transmission by his office of that same media release.

It seems that this radio report by Adam Harvey was broadcast a full hour before the documents were claimed to have been created by Abbott, giving more water to the already mounting evidence. It seems journalists are refusing to join the dots & do any real investigation into this matter of utmost national importance. There is little evidence to back up Abbott’s claims, & without a full inquiry into this the truth of the matter will never be uncovered.

The more the traditional media attempts to sweep this matter under the carpet, the more confidence is given to s & citizen journalists. To be honest, I have no problem with this, & I encourage more crowd sourcing, citizen journalism & blogging on these issues to hold ALL politicians to account.

[UPDATE5]: (so many updates) Well, it seems Mark Colvin () of ABC Radio has stated that Adam Harvey’s story was posted using the AWST (Perth) time zone.

It seems the story was submitted at 8am AEST but rebroadcast later with references to the press release.

There are still questions about the apparent modification of documents, & PDF’s from the same user (mcdulingg) having the correct time zone on documents processed on the same day.’

[UPDATE6]: (I swear, this is the last one) I have been sent the original, unedited PDFs by a journalist. Looking at the PDFs & the date formatting, it seems the date output by MS Word 2007 has defaulted to a “null time zone” format, meaning it is timestampped with the local time. As I have stated in UPDATE3, mcdulingg’s computer’s time zone was set to +10hrs, as we can see from the PDF output on the same day via Adobe Distiller. This means that the unedited document is showing +10hrs time zone on the originals, and not, as Abbott has claimed, 10 hours out.

Original PDF Metadata from Slipper Release.

Original PDF Metadata from Slipper Release.

Some testing by twitter users with Word 2007 & Adobe Acrobat have confirmed that a file output by Word 2007 with a null time zone will be reverted to Zulu time upon being edited & saved in Adobe Acrobat as there is no timezone information available so Acrobat assumes Zulu time. This does mean that the original files were output at 23:08 (& 32 seconds) on 20/04/12 in the AEST (+10hrs) time zone, meaning Abbott’s office was not only aware of the impending report from News LTD, but had enough time to prepare a statement the night before.

Yes, this has confirmed my suspicions that the edited file was not showing the correct time zone, and while more than likely this was not changed for malicious reasons, it does show that Abbott’s “10 hours out” to be bullshit on so many levels. It’s clear that Abbott was made aware of much more than he’s letting on.


Unedited Statement on Peter Slipper MP from the office of Tony Abbott MHR: view
Edited Statement on Peter Slipper MP from the office of Tony Abbott MHR: view
Reference document to determine time zone of mcdulingg’s computer: view

NB: my site may slow down A LOT if everyone grabs the PDFs. If you don’t have access to the tools to look at time zones, don’t bother. Thanks.

Share: Share on RedditShare on Google+Digg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone
  • Marian Rumens

    Power to your arm Geek Right is might.

  • check the pdfs

    I have been checking out a few PDFs from the parlinfo site, and indeed the press release in question is dated 11pm the night before. However the subsequent transcript of his doorstop is dated 12:06am, meaning the transcript would have been created 9 hours before the doorstop. The document also lists an author name which suggests it could have been created by a PR agency rather than on APH computers.



  • Anne C. Tan

    Well done Sortius…all strength to your arm!

  • http://allanr44.wordpress.com allanr44

    Damn fine body of work, Sortius :)

  • Concerned Citizen

    Interesting – Wonder if the doco was written by a PR firm..Was it sent to him in a Email..Put on his PC off a USB drive….Keep digging folks

  • http://bogong-moth.blogspot.com metaboleus

    I thought the same thing it does seem more than odd that the servers would be 10 hours out. besides the obvious authentication reasons you pointed out, it seems that the need for a correct time stamp would be of great import to such a department. surely even slack admins would have to have heard of NTP.

  • http://otiose94.wordpress.com otiose94

    Good work – linked on otiose94.wordpress.com

  • http://gravatar.com/dafid1 dafid1d

    Sortius thanks to good folk like yourself, truth will eventually prevail and the disgraceful involvement of LNP MPs will be revealed, wearing their filthy laundry for all to see.
    This is not the first time they have tried the ‘fiddle the documents’ trick. Gretch ring bells?

  • PJO

    The Transcript PDF definitely says 12.06.27 AM. The same time difference as the press release and at odds with the time of the media conference.

  • http://gravatar.com/jufemaiz Joel

    I’m glad someone else was thinking the same thing this morning!!!

  • http://www..com/lynda.hopgood.1 chinda63

    Take a look at the PDFs linked above. Very interesting “created” dates/times … and also very interesting “modified” dates/times.

    When Abbott first came out with his statement, many Twitterers commented on how quickly he seemed to have prepared a fully-fledged response, considering he claimed to have heard about it first by reading the morning’s paper.

    It was a Saturday morning, remember. Not a normal work day, so it’s not like his staff would have been already sitting in the office in front of a computer and able to quickly knock up a statement. Some “assemblage” would have been required. It all seemed far too quick and well-prepared for many.

    Now, note also the modifications were done within an hour of getting to work on the Monday.

    I reckon over the course of the weekend they realsed they might have to do a bit of arse-covering and made some amendments to the original documents.

    The question is what did they change and why?

  • http://gravatar.com/ozpeter ozpmn

    Doesn’t that suggest that the TZ on the machine it was created on was at +0 UTC (I did a quick test – changed to +0 (London) created a PDF and it looked like the original one.
    In April Canberra would be +10 ie PDF made @ 9.08 – so seems like it wasn’t previous night to me.

    • sortius

      This is not the case if the file is exported from MS Word.

  • Tads

    Yes document was created by a publicity company, author “mcdulingg” would be this company http://www.mcdulingpr.com.au/

  • http://gravatar.com/jufemaiz Joel
  • http://twitter.com/GeordieGuy Geordie Guy ()

    That’s a great explanation of time on a network for laymen but you’re assuming that when politicians say “the time on the server was wrong” that he knows, or means, what he’s saying. Any clock he’s ever seen on either his computer, his phone, his mate’s phone or the lift lobby advertising screens are likely to be called “the server” in his parlance – politicians are the type of people that point to a computer case and call it “the hard drive”.

    One of either two things are the likely case in decreasing order of likelihood –

    Someone was expecting this all to blow up and it was pre-written and thereby it’s a conspiracy
    Someone was expecting something like this to blow up and the document was mostly pre-written. You see this a lot with celebrity deaths and newspapers having pre-written the story with just the date and cause needing to be changed
    The document was written on someone’s couch on their laptop with the clock out because their 7 year old changed the clock, the document was chucked into dropbox and the leader of the opposition has been shown how to get documents out of it and use them


  • Tads

    … or it could be this guy, also in Bris and you’d have to ask if he was related:

  • Tads

    So, does this Brisbane public relations company work for Brough or Ashy? These are the people who created that statement Abbott had so handily prepared for when he “read the newspaper” that morning.

    • http://michaelwyres.com/ Michael Wyres

      Brisbane…that’s pretty close to Mal Brough’s HQ, no?

  • Tads

    Oh look, McDuling PR employs Grant Duling http://www.mcdulingpr.com.au/extra-ghost_writing_editing.htm

  • z3n_digital

    Where was Abbott on the evening / day of the 20th … Was he on one of his doom / gloom tours round Aust aka in Brisbane #justasking

    • William Telfson

      Tone was in Brisbane talking down the economy, then he moved on to Hervey Bay to talk down the economy. The next day he flew to Melbourne to talk down the economy before returing to Sydney to … just checking my notes … yep, talk down the economy.

      • z3n_digital

        If that is the case the PR firm was in Brisbane .. coincidence i think not

  • weatherb

    1. sortius, could you please put your updates in layman’s terms? even for a semi-geek i’m getting a bit lost with them.

    2. could you also check against the other documents pointed to by others – to determine whether there is indeed a pattern of oddness. to speak definitively of this one press release, it needs comparison with adjacent documents

    3. i would say mcduling pr is pure coincidence. pollies do their pr, spin and press releases in house

  • http://twitter.com/Capt_Callis Captain Callis ()

    Grant McDuling is a Ghost Writer, which means he’ll draft up whatever a client tells him to

  • Robert Aylen

    Wasn’t it reported that Abbott was involved in the having the goods on Slipper in the 2003 incident. Could his involvement in this eposode be the supply of this information to Ashby Via his contact with Pyne?

  • The Masked Crusader

    Abbott & his Staffers have form regarding altering historical documents. The online transcripts of Tony Abbott’s media interviews are altered to delete “mistakes” using the E&OE (errors & omissions edited) as a disclaimer on all of his online transcripts. What is missing in the online transcripts is any reference or notation as to where any of the documents have been altered.This was reluctantly & frostily confirmed by a female staffer in Tony Abbott’s office when I rang his Canberra office to question why an interview I had recorded differed from the online transcript as noted on Mr Abbott’s website. It was related to Mr Abbott’s outrageous & false claims regarding the cost impact on power prices of the so called “carbon tax” in Western Sydney. Will post more info & supporting evidence on this shortly.

  • check the pdfs
  • Pingback: Attempted Coup Averted | otiose94

  • Pingback: Non Appealing and Missing 10 hours | otiose94

  • Concerned Citizen

    Have a look at hockeys eye in yesterdays interview where he was spruiking Brough and trying to answer other questions..they are all over the place….very, very nervous..Look and you will understand

  • David

    Very interesting article but are there ALP supporters amongst those who have responded. I too, know how the federal parliamentary internal computer system works especially when it first came online.

  • http://lnx-bsp.net/ Tel

    When testing the export from DOC to PDF in Microsoft Word 2007, I note that the “Created On” date and the “Last Modified” date are always exactly the same (right down to the second).

    Also, in your test using Word 2010 the same thing happens (both timestamps are identical), so that makes me conclude the “Created On” date would never normally contain the true date that the DOC was created, it only contains the date that you export the PDF. In which case, how in the world can these two dates ever come out different? Can anyone make that happen by a plausible process (i.e. not using a manual edit of the PDF file)? Does any server process cause internal metadata in a PDF file to be modified? That would be a very peculiar thing for a regular fileserver to be doing.

    What’s more, if this “Created On” timestamp really has been manually edited, then why would the person edit this in such a way as to make it look MORE INCRIMINATING than just leaving it alone and not touching at all? Doesn’t make sense, huh.

  • Pingback: Abbott implicated by 10 hours of (bullsh)IT | Independent Australia

  • Tads

    Considering the original document seems to have been created by a publicity company there is NO way it could have been done in the 9 minutes between the story being published in the Lolstralian and the press release being … released. It was written prior, and Abbott is a liar.

  • Pingback: Debunking Abbott’s “server timestamp” claims | Delimiter

  • Pingback: Time Stamps and Land Mines | GeordieGuy.com

  • teddysea

    Good man Sortius! Fight the good fight.

  • z3n_digital


    Sorry to say Sortius is still correct and as update 4 above shows this is the case more then ever … North Coat Voices had the article 1 hour and 10 mins before Abbott or his office claimed to have sent it ..

    So how can it have been prepared , typed and sent out in negative 1 hr … He is not superman or he does not have a time machine

  • Luke

    Great work … as a software engineer I have to say this looks really bad for Abbott. As in, a full blown lie that he can not deny.

  • William Telfson

    Very good work but I’m afraid it will achieve nothing. The media decided that Abbott will be PM and that’s that, nothing will change their mind (the use of the singular is deliberate). It’s not so much about bias, they’re just too pig headed to admit being wrong and will continue to support Abbott no matter what he does.

  • Anony-mouse

    The Adam Harvey 3:41min 21 April interview & intro was aired around 6 minutes into the ABC AM 8am AEST broadcast.
    It appears to have been pre-recorded.
    There is no notation on the ABC website showing that this interview was updated after 8am AEST.

  • monkymind

    According to tweet by Malcolm Farr:

    farrm51: Dpt Parl Services investigated date stamp issue & 2day reported timing was out & Ashby release was created Saturday morning says OL office. [http://twitter.com/farrm51/status/280537002301079552]

  • http://www.smh.com.au Ben Grubb
    • sortius

      I’ve seen the email, & posted the timestamps for the original document, it seems that this explanation is incorrect as the original document does not use “z date” format.

  • Marian Rumens

    Bernard Keane says in Crikey that the media release could have been created on a machine with a clock out by 10 hours then emailed to a machine on the APH system. What do you think?

  • Simon Shaw

    I’m an IT systems admin with 27 years experience. I concur this looks like Abbott is lying. It’s possible it could be done, but not for the reason Tony gave.

    Biased media will bury it.

  • IntrepidFear


    I’m going to disagree with your findings. The Z time you are noting is inferred from the lack of a timezone being added to the files. The ‘Z’ does not appear, however within the document itself – it is the application you re using which is inferring that.

    The original “12-04-21-Statement-on-Peter-Slipper-MP.pdf”, analysed here; http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ibw26c&s=6 shows the file being created by Microsoft word without a timezone offset.

    You can’t modify these to add an offset without forcing a recreation of the entire PDF as and attempt to manipulate the offset will add extra data to the PDF file throwing the Xref Tables out and corrupting the file.

    The ‘modified’ file appears to have been generated in a different way to the original http://tinypic.com/r/2yug286/6. The create date is the same as it is picking up the internal data from the original PDF document – the output adds the offset at the same time it adds other RDF data for cataloguing.

    I would suggest that mcdulingg computer is saving with a UTC time zone, and the government machines are saving with the timezone offset which is forcing the +10 when it is saved for government machines.

    To further this particular view, your control PDF which was created the same day:



    You’ll note the second screenshot is where the time offsets are added, once again at the time RDF information is added for cataloguing of data in the parliament systems.

  • GistMe

    IntrepidFear your logic is great until you get to the bit where you say “I would suggest that mcdulingg computer is saving with a UTC time zone”. Why? Where do you get that? Word will timestamp with the LOCAL time of whatever the computer is set to. So if the computer happens to be set to UTC+10 then the timestamp will be AEST. There is NO information regarding timezone as you yourself have said so there’s no way of knowing what timezone that timestamp relates to.

    So you have no basis for assuming that it is UTC, it’s just a guess on your part. Whereas there IS evidence that the mcdulingg computer is set to UTC+10 (as would be normal).

    For what it’s worth, the fact that the pdf was later modified is unquestionable – for instance, Adobe XMP metadata has been added and that’s something that Word 7.0 does NOT add. So the later document was NOT created out of Word and I gather the evidence is that it was created using Adobe’s Distiller. Compare the two documents (as I did with a blink test) and you’ll find there is no difference in the content down to the last punctuation mark and character spacing.

    Why edit a document and make no changes? Well… that’s the 64 thousand dollar question, innit?

  • IntrepidFear

    GistMe – the problem is, you have no basis for saying the computer wasn’t set to +10:00. You’re basing you’re assumptions on the computer which generated the PDFs. Not the ones that created the document initially. The documents do not provide conclusive evidence of such. You cannot infer from the data available that at least on of the mcdulingg machines was not set to UTC for some reason or another.

    I don’t dispute the PDF was recreated at some point, and for whatever reason. I can tell you from actually looking at the Hx dump there is significant modification. The process by which the original, and the modified one were created were different, which is why there is significant differences in the underlying base – but not visible to the eye when viewing it as a PDF.

    I cannot answer why someone regenerated the PDF – I do not propose to. All I am saying is, the data available so far does not reach the conclusion that the document could not have initially been created with an incorrect time zone. Hell, for all we know, mcdulingg could have been in the UK and may have legitimately been on UTC time.

    • GistMe

      IntrepidFear – “the problem is, you have no basis for saying the computer wasnâ??t set to +10:00″

      Yes there is – other documents from mcdulingg indicate it is set to UTC+10

      “Youâ??re basing youâ??re assumptions on the computer which generated the PDFs. Not the ones that created the document initially.”

      The original PDF was created by Word 7.0 as is quite clear in the metadata. You’ll see the tags in your hex dump (or just use Notepad for those who don’t want to bother with hex) as:

      Microsoft�® Office Word 2007


      And from what I’ve seen on Twitter, mcdulingg is supposedly a staffer in Abbott’s office responsible for (presumably amongst other things) sending out press releases. No need to assume they’re anywhere except Canberra.

  • IntrepidFear

    No – the computer which generated the PDF’s added the +10:00 timestamp.

    The control document included has a metafile timestamp without, and with the +10:00 time stamps see the highighted code: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2195o42&s=6

    CAPS doesn’t change the fact there is no evidence to suggest a different computer wasn’t used to generate the PDF’s – either is conceptually possible. The PDF’s inherit the author data from Word – so it doesn’t matter which machine. As I explained to on twitter, I have tested this on 2007 and 2010 with the Save As PDF function, and it inherits the original author data – it doesn’t take my own.

    “And from what Iâ??ve seen on Twitter, mcdulingg is supposedly a staffer in Abbottâ??s office ” – I’m sorry, that is not evidence, nor is it conclusive.

    ” No need to assume theyâ??re anywhere except Canberra.” – there absolutely is – you’re basing the underlying assumption which underpin these documents on time zones. One cannot make such assumptions which are critical to the evidence. When compared to the control document, there is clearly a 10 hour offset being added by the PDF generating tool as shown in the screenshot I have pointed out above. This is consistent with the issue being raised.

    I am not a supporter of Abbott, and I would have liked to have said the evidence conclusively establishes unequivocal guilt – but it does not and points to a consistent timestamp discrepancy between mcdulingg and the computers generating the PDFs.

    • GistMe

      There’s also the possibility that aliens swept in from a future time and changed the timestamps for a lark and are now laughing at us across time and space. But I also discount that possibility as well.

      Occams razor – the evidence fits the scenario Sortius has proposed so unless there’s other evidence then this is the current best choice. If you want to claim a second computer generating a PDF then you’d best start by explaining where it is and what it is because the generated file is exactly what I’d expect to see generated locally from Word’s PDF feature.

      • IntrepidFear

        GistMe – I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that only one scenario fits the situation otherwise it flies in the face of logic.

        You are proposing that someone modified date and time stamps to hide the original date format when both the press releases in question AND the control created on the same day which is not under investigation BOTH exhibit time zone modifications caused by the conversion to PDF.

        The alternate version, which is apparently so hard to fathom, is that one computer generating the initial word document has a different time zone setting to the one generating the PDF. Holy fucking Toledos Batman!

        Under your logic – this is a complete fallacy and is so improbable because, by your reasoning:
        * Only one computer is ever used for typing a press release, PDFing it and sending it out. All users must congregate around said machine; Failing that –
        * No-one ever travels. Ever. It is implausible that someone in a different location typed a document from a different timezone and someone in a completely different part of the world received it via some kind of magical communication network. Magical fucking bulldust, right?
        * Occams Razor? So when deciding guilt – the fewest assumptions is the best. i.e. Someone MUST have edited the PDF document to hide stuff is the better assumption than, computer had a different time zone.

        Yes, the PDF generated is exactly what I would expect to see as well. Based on comparing tests to the control and to the samples provided. The author of the document does not need to do the conversion to be branded the author of the PDF. I’m sorry if this differs from your expectations.

        I’m not saying the underlying argument is not possible, or indeed happen – what I am saying is that there is enough evidence to suggest that it did not happen. You’re entitled to your opinion, as am I, and you can stick steadfastly to your beliefs and hide behind fantasy as a way of throwing away any alternate opinions – also your choice – but it does not chnge the fact there is other alternatives which can explain the date formats on the PDF and there is simply not enough evidence, from a technical standpoint to justify with 100% certainty there is guilt. It is what it is, despite your protestations.

  • http://www..com/jed.mahoney.5 Jed Mahoney

    Re [UPDATE5] and the explanation that “â?¦It seems the story was submitted at 8am AEST but rebroadcast later with references to the press release. â?¦”
    Despite Mark Colvin’s memory, the WA time slot explanation just doesn’t gel.
    I might be getting too old, snarky and feisty â?? :) â?? but it’s pretty clear from the AM transcript that, without abbott’s statement / press release, issued well before he claims it was, there was NO STORY to report!
    You’ve done sublime work to date, sortius: let’s not start retrofitting history.

  • vfmarky

    Hey – here’s a real exclusive for you.
    What was that? Can’t touch it. Oh I seeâ?¦

  • Kylie Kay

    Gistme, don’t give up I am sure if you can create even a flimsy case of time stamp abuse it will make AWU slush fund crimes go away

  • http://www..com/douglas.evans.5811 Douglas Evans


    It looks to me as if Shane McLeod’s explanation of Adam Harvey’s news item (above) clearly states that it ran at 8.00 AEST in the eastern states and 10.00 AEST in the west. Is that not so? This would coincide with Radio National morning AM running an item by Elisabeth Jackson at 8.07 AEST as the program website clearly indicates occurred. Is the Radio National AM website showing WA time? I can’t imagine why it would but that’s the only explanation I can find that suggests that it might have hit the air after 9.07 AEST when the document was supposed to have been created. Unless the ABC is operating on WA time BOTH broadcasts went to air more than an hour before Abbott and DPS say it was created. Isn’t that so? I’d really like you to explain to me where I’m getting this wrong as I’m losing sleep over it.