Except that, by Ciara's own version, some of the women asked if their conversations with the investigating firm would be the subject of solicitor / client privilege, didn't get an answer, and declined to participate. Maybe they had reasons they wanted to continue to throw their darts from the shadows, and maybe some of those reasons were even valid. But... it's a little rich to decline to participate and then complain that you weren't interviewed.
Anyway, I think what the firm is really saying is that the Whitecaps reasonably relied on the advice they were given. The problem with that is that when you're the one hiring the investigator, you can hardly be surprised when the report comes back in an overly favourable way to you. Moreover, I've never heard of this lawyer and she appears to have disappeared into thin air. How they landed on her, and what made them think that her assessment and recommendations would carry particular weight, is beyond me.
Frankly, it leaves them open to the allegation that they went looking for someone who might be inclined to sweep it under the rug and give them cover, and they got what they paid for, essentially.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but I can certainly see how members of the public might be drawn to that interpretation...
EDIT: not off the face of the earth; found her on LinkedIn.. seems a lifelong consultant in this type of area, which is paradoxically not really what I would want if I was trying to get to the bottom of a messy situation...
Anyway, I think what the firm is really saying is that the Whitecaps reasonably relied on the advice they were given. The problem with that is that when you're the one hiring the investigator, you can hardly be surprised when the report comes back in an overly favourable way to you. Moreover, I've never heard of this lawyer and she appears to have disappeared into thin air. How they landed on her, and what made them think that her assessment and recommendations would carry particular weight, is beyond me.
Frankly, it leaves them open to the allegation that they went looking for someone who might be inclined to sweep it under the rug and give them cover, and they got what they paid for, essentially.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but I can certainly see how members of the public might be drawn to that interpretation...
EDIT: not off the face of the earth; found her on LinkedIn.. seems a lifelong consultant in this type of area, which is paradoxically not really what I would want if I was trying to get to the bottom of a messy situation...