Offer to the CEO

Monday, continued …

Anna continued "Now I know there has been a significant amount of interest last Monday's story.My husband challenged each and every member of the press corps that were present to go and verify the situation.No one has seemed to be interested in taking up the challenge."

"None of you have made contact to request an interview with my husband or to verify information from Hou Corporation.You have condemned him without any investigation of the facts.It suits you to look for some other scandal connected to us.This is in the light of the condemnation of most press organisations due to the lack of information available to the press and public about the matters involving myself, my husband, Lu Jinhu and Yang Lin."

"Before we get to the real reason for this press conference, I want to address this with each and all of you here about this.Maybe then, you can understand that we are not acting deliberately, and judge the information we will be presenting to you fairly."

"The court has made a decision about the information to be released, and that is not a decision that we will trespass on.If as members of the press you have an objection, I understand that there is a process that you can go through to have the decision overturned.But I can, from the inside see the reasons why, and that ties with cross national issues where information is legally required not to be disclosed."

"Now, without specifically addressing that matter further, as the press before you jump at me and tell me that I am a lawyer, and I know all the tricks, let me give you information about suppressing information in cases and why it can be important.It can be about protecting victims, witnesses, and even the justice system."

"Imagine as a baby you were seriously abused, and s*xually assaulted by a family member. Your name and the details of the abuse were allowed to be published by the media, simply because the media said the public need to know all information.That information would become searchable on the internet for ever."

"It is something that can be used against the victim throughout their life.Think about it you were the victim and abused but given the freely available information you are made a victim for the whole of your life.You could never escape it."

"It makes me think about the controversy in Australia, when it was announced publicly that Cardinal George Pell had been convicted of s*x offences against children.People were demanding why was the information hidden in Australia, yet a search of the internet for months would have found about the conviction."

"The reason for this was that there were pending criminal charges of a similar nature, but that occurred years earlier.While the legal systems from here to Australia are different, I have a question for each of you to consider."

"If you were told that 12 of you were going to listen to evidence about certain offences that person X had allegedly committed, but knew that X had been convicted of similar offences that occurred at a different time and location, would you not automatically assume, given that X had been convicted of similar or the same offences that he did it regardless of anything else?"

"No one can say that they would not be affected in looking at evidence knowing that.However if you did not know that same fact you would not have a predisposition to view that given X had done something similar he is more likely to have committed."

"It is for these type of reasons and many, many more that the courts make a decision to keep some information about offences private, or use fake names to hide some information of what happened to protect people."

Anna paused for a few seconds, and someone in the press spoke "Madam Hou, so you are saying that there is something to be protected in what happened?"

"Absolutely, if you want to try and find out more information go to the court and ask for the suppression of the information to be lifted argue with them.But get an understanding why it might have been suppressed and form your argument.Do not take it out on us, which is what you seem to be doing."

"Most importantly you should not think that is an affront to the press while information us suppressed.You should try to think about why this has been done from the information that is in the public view.Apply that logic to last Monday's situation, and you should in part be able to deduce why it happened.It is what is called investigative journalism."