Josh's joshings     'The buck starts here'  Josh

"The finest and most perceptive blog in the entire Universe" - Jayson (not Tony) Blair


Email me *



How easy is it to recognise irony.
A. Pedant



Big boys (& girls)


British Journalism Review*
The Guardian*
Melbourne Age*




Worth a look


Charlie's Diary*
The Feral Eye*
Green fairy*
I live on your visits*
Jak - Vancouver*
Junius*
Quantum Tea*
Reflections in D minor*




Drabness is a state of mind
A. Pedant

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Saturday, November 02, 2002
 
More on the collapse of the Burrell trial

As I blogged-in-chief yesterday, there is one overriding question for the post mortem: who triggered the whole nonsensical exercise? The police would never have started such an investigation without a complaint from a member of 'the public'. So, who was it who suggested in the first place that Burrell was being criminal, rather than discreet? And what was the motive in this suggestion? Jealousy, greed, malice, bloody mindedness, insanity, or plain stupidity? (Personally, I'd go for the last option, Mr/Ms Culprit. I don't think any reputation would survive another 'verdict'. It is probably close enough to what we already know, anyway.)

The policewoman in charge of the investigation, Maxine de Brunner, is obviously going to get it in the neck for some of the oversights of her investigation. She is not totally responsible, however; she did not decide to investigate in the first place. So who did? And who decided to prosecute? Was it all because of the ‘stature’ of the complainants? We want to know how the prosecution witnesses came to light, if there were others who made statements who were not called and who they were.

So, Ms Brunner, get talking to 'investigative journalists'. They may, just, come up trumps for once.


Comments: Post a Comment