domingo, 26 de fevereiro de 2012

Acima da lei.


By Dr Martin Roberts
26 February 2012

No one is above the Law. Except perhaps for what's-his-name upstairs, and a few consultants of one complexion or another.

Hence we have perjury, interfering with an investigation, and the obstruction of justice (so far). All perpetrated in the name of innocence.

The McCann affair, whatever its eventual outcome, will no doubt provide Law faculties worldwide with study material for years to come, for however tight one's research net, some piece of plankton is always likely to escape attention. How many of us remember, for instance, the episode where a recruitment consultant was 'consulted' with a view to recruiting a handful of her close associates to help out with a modest charade in Portugal?

On April 17, 2008, Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Constabulary, sent a rather 'pally' e-mail to Rachael and Matthew Oldfield c/o Rachael Oldfield. The message closed thus:

'I trust that these answers will assist you and the others in reaching a decision as to whether you intend to participate in the proposed re-enactment.

'If you wish to discuss this further then please do not hesitate in getting in touch with myself.'

The author signed off as 'Stu'

Almost a week later (23 April) Ms Oldfield responded on behalf of herself, her husband (to whom she copied her text) and, one imagines, several of her erstwhile holiday companions.

Her self-righteous message is bracketed by the opening:

'We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary.'

And closing:

'We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.'

In between is a catalogue of unbridled arrogance, setting out the terms under which they would consider participating in the re-enactment requested by the Portuguese authorities.

Since when on God's green earth does a recruitment consultant, having manifestly failed to recruit the necessary personnel in this instance, have the right to dictate conditions of attendance at a police reconstruction?

Can you imagine the 'revenue' standing for an epistle, in lieu of a cheque, stating that the author needed to be properly convinced of the reasons for paying their taxes? Mind you, a letter to H.M. Treasury suggesting they 'claw back' as much as possible of the £3.5 m. 'McCann Review' subsidy recently allocated to the Metropolitan Police might not go amiss.

That two individuals can have been allowed to cause mayhem on the international stage and instigate expenditure of truly epic proportions, all in the name of a child whom they both acknowledge to be dead, simply beggars belief.

What's that? Whenever did either of the McCanns admit or suggest that Madeleine is dead?

They have each done so on separate occasions during broadcast media interviews, so what sounds like an admission is exactly that, and not an apparent error attributable to over zealous reporting or an editorial 'angle.'

First, Kate McCann (to Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010):

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

Well, less than 100% alive equals 'dead' (as a light is either 'on' or 'off'). Furthermore, according to Kate, they would be lying if they claimed Madeleine was 100% alive. The truth therefore can only be that Madeleine is less than 100% alive, i.e., that she is 100% dead. Interestingly Kate McCann does not talk of 'speculating Madeleine is alive,' as one might if the child's fate were to be undetermined, but lying about her being so, which reflects a categorical knowledge on Kate's part.

And now Gerry McCann (to Nicky Campbell, Radio Five Live Breakfast, 1 May, 2008):

"We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis. We do put requests in, that we do want to get as much information as possible and, I think, what we've asked, and will ask repeatedly, is: 'what evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgement of that."

Couldn't be much clearer could it? The McCanns know of no evidence to suggest Madeleine is anything other than dead. Yet should any member of the public acknowledge said fact, as the McCanns would have them do, they run the risk of being invited to defend themselves against a charge of defamation.

A little knowledge… a dangerous thing, is it not? How many times has Gerry McCann made the statement, 'Kate and I strongly believe Madeleine was alive when she was taken?' Quite several, in one variant or another. But on one particular occasion he glibly added, 'obviously we don't know what happened to her afterwards.' Obviously. So any knowledge they might have had concerning Madeleine's state of health can only pertain to a time before she was 'taken,' ostensibly between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. on the night of Thursday 3 May, 2007.

For Kate McCann to resist any temptation to claim that her daughter is 100% alive and, in so doing 'lying' about it, she has to 'know' that such a claim would not be truthful. Yet that knowledge cannot have come from any evidence as to Madeleine's whereabouts or well-being since she was reported missing. There isn't any. And we have already been informed that the McCanns obviously don't know what has happened to Madeleine since the magic hour. On what basis therefore does Kate presume to know that Madeleine is less than 100% alive? Her knowledge can only derive from Madeleine's status prior to being 'taken,' not afterwards.

In sum, the McCanns have given us two 'key pieces of information:' That Madeleine is dead (not 100% alive - there is no evidence to suggest otherwise) and that she is known by Kate to have been less than 100% alive (i.e. dead) prior to the time when Kate raised the alarm (Kate would not lie about something she cannot have ascertained later).

Never mind elephants in the room, someone's having a giraffe! One that has already cost any number of people their livelihoods and continues to soak up tax-payers and others' cash like an unsupervised siphon, while various agents of justice, one Lord Leveson among them, continue to cow-tow to a pair of self-proclaimed martyrs.
Enviar um comentário