I think the most telling aspect of this issue was Starmer's refusal to answer a simple question repeatedly asked (in the clip)as to when the recruitment began. The innocent can generally always answer simple questions.

So was she impartial - who knows - but her integrity was potentially compromised by conflict of interest - investigating a Tory PM in the knowledge that she would soon be advising the future PM.

This isn't about Johnson's guilt - I don't think that's in doubt - it's about another cover up of something that may have no substance, but just.might. it's about not answering simple questions which would clear her. So what's the logical inference?

A simple "she only came on KS radar after she finished the enquiry" would have dealt with it once and for all. That statement was not forthcoming, leaving all to assume that it isn't true