But the blame game carries on regardless – comment from Peter Saxon

The official inquest into the apparent suicide of nurse Jacintha Saldanha began last Thursday and was promptly adjourned till March 26, 2013 – an agonisingly long time before the truth comes out. But that’s how long it takes for police and other professional investigators to find the facts that can be put before a court in the pursuit of justice.

Of course, that’s not good enough for the court of public opinion (CPO) which wants answers now – any answers will do as long as someone can be blamed.

The British press, who sees it their sacred duty to feed the ravenous CPO is happy to stretch and milk this tragedy for every gawking reader it can garner by drip-feeding information to the masses so that they have something to feed on between now and the end of March when the real inquiry hands down its findings.

A few days ago, we were told there was a suicide note. But we had to wait for another day to be told there were three notes: one mentioned the prank call, another the hospital, and the third Mrs Saldanha’s funeral requests.

Another day went past before we were all fed another tidbit from the notes: that 2Day had indeed called back within an hour of the prank and reportedly spoke to Mrs Saldanha. What was said during the call, we may find out tomorrow as the British press continues to serialise the poor woman’s suicide notes.

It seems difficult to believe that they haven’t seen or been made aware of the entire contents of the note. If so, they should do the decent thing and reveal the lot. Or nothing at all and wait for the official findings.

As it is, what we know – or more accurately, what we are told – asks more questions than it answers.

SCA says it made at least five calls to the hospital without result. The hospital said they have no record of any such calls. Mrs Saldanha’s note contradicts both statements, saying she spoke to the 2Day announcers an hour after the hoax call was made. If so, what was said?

Did she give permission for her voice to go to air? Did she refuse? Or was she simply informed that she’d been pranked and it would be broadcast? No doubt the answer will be of some use to the ACMA’s inquiry.

Sadly, it is like to be of little use in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

Peter Saxon