"1. She claims she had no knowledge of the accusations against Salmond until he told her. But his Chief of Staff had a meeting with her in her office where he told her of the allegations. She claims she "forgot" the meeting (fleeting / opportunistic etc) but he says it was planned."
This isn't quite accurate. The meeting on the 29th was arranged earlier in March, at the request of FM's office - her COS I believe. It's my understanding that it was in the initial contact to arrange that meeting that a complaint's name was alleged to have been disclosed. I think if it was in the 29th meeting, then NS's claim that she didn't believe the disclosure happened makes little sense as she was at that meeting & could say for sure if it was disclosed or not. The meeting on 29th wasn't the informal request for a meeting with Aberdein popping his head round her office door to ask if it was OK that AS 'popped in' to see her at her home. The 2nd April meeting was a fairly heavy meeting he'd traveled 200+ miles to get to, along with his ex COS, his lawyer/counsel. 29th March meeting was supposedly to arrange the 2nd April meeting.
I've seen a lot of people asking why that 29th March meeting makes such a difference as it's only a few days. The reason it's significant is it calls into question when Sturgeon 1st knew. And when she 1st knew then has implications for what happened when the complainants 1st approached with their complaints.
I've seen it mentioned that McCann, the person one of the complainants 1st approached is alleged to have 'sat' on the disclosure until it was politically useful. I don't know the source of that so I can't say if it's true or not.
Both Sturgeon & Murrell have said they had no inclination or concerns about Salmond's alleged behaviour before the allegations came forward. Sturgeon's role as DFM under Salmond included (before that role was removed under the unlawful process Evans introduced) being the most senior person in government who would have to address any formal complaints. One of the issues with the Fairness at Work policy that Salmond introduced was that in all that time there were no formal complaints but there were informal resolutions. One of the eventual complainants made a complaint which was dealt with informally. I think the implication is that sturgeon never knew about that, never got wind of it, and yet I think it was claimed at the criminal trial it was 'known' Salmond wasn't to be left alone with lone female government employees.
I've just read that the meeting that took place days before FM was removed from the development or involvement of the unlawful harassment policy that covered former 1st ministers, between Sturgeon & Evans, Evans destroyed the notes of that meeting.
To my mind, I think it was important that Sturgeon could maintain distance from the idea of developing the harassment policy, specifically one that included former 1st ministers & which also didn't include the same resolution options as the one for current ministers. Cos if she had any fingerprints on such a policy, then it gives weight to an alleged personal vendetta, or knowledge of the behaviour that was being targeted. But no one knows what was said in that meeting where Evans destroyed the notes & then days later the development of the policy which was deemed unlawful began.
So, when she 1st knew isn't just about the difference of a couple of days.
She told Parliament she 1st found out on 2nd April. She then claims she 'forgot' the meeting on 29th march. Her explanation from Salmond's POV is implausible, given the subject & prior discussions on the subject.
I'll need to read her statements to see what she's said already but from other's comments, I'm not sure her explanations clarify much.