Thursday, 19 January 2012

Perjury, Power & Popularity

Perjury is a serious crime.

Suborning the perjury of others is an even more serious crime.

Engaging in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct, mislead, and distract a tribunal set up by the Houses of the Oireachtais would, if it happened, be a crime on such a grand scale as to warrant immediate, vigilant  and thorough investigation.

The fact that the evidence of a gentleman (for shorthand purposes hereafter referrd to as Mr X), both written and oral, at tribunal, changed fluidly at least three times, must not be taken as evidence that this writer regards him as a perjurer.

Mr X is an honourable man.

That a lady (hereafter unnamed) was warned by a learned judge of the dangers of perjury and SUBSEQUENTLY changed her evidence from an account that tallied with Mr X's evidence to an account, given under oath, which disagrees TOTALLY with that gentleman's evidence and the evidence of several others, previously citizens of entirely UNBLEMISHED character and reputation, also given UNDER OATH, may not be construed as indicating that this writer believed at any stage that Mr X was engaged either in perjury or the suborning of perjury , nor that those other respectable citizens, previously of entirely unblemished character and reputation, perjured themselves either. Nor that Mr X asked or persuaded them to lie under oath, thus suborning their perjury.
Mr X is an honourable man.

The evidence of  the lady (herein unnamed) and the documents that forced her to alter her evidence (documents which tally with her later evidence but flatly contradict Mr X's evidence  in all its various versions) may not mean Mr X, by lying under oath, perjured himself. There may be alternative, mutually contradictory truths.

Pontius Pilate asked “What is truth ?” but did not wait for the answer. Maybe he, had he waited, would have been told that truth is both infinitely malleable and there are infinite numbers of versions of it out there. That Mr X's evidence agreed with the evidence of several  citizens previously of entirely unblemished character and reputation and not with a lady (herein unnamed) may be due to the wonders of a large and diverging universe governed by complex and largely mis-understood rules: coincidence instead of conspiracy.

Mr X is an honourable man.

Perjury is both a very serious crime and, for Catholics, a very serious sin. As a crime it undermines justice and the rule of law as exercised through the courts.  If we cannot trust a witness we can trust no court, no trial nor no verdict. Mr X has,during his career, made annual public show of his Catholic beliefs.

As a sin perjury may be worse than eating chocolate and drinking whiskey for breakfast.

As a crime it is a vicious undermining of law, courts & justice.

Perjury is not just a crime for little people.

Mr X is an honourable man.
Others supported Mr X's increasingly various stories, under oath, at a tribunal set up by the Houses of the Oireachtais. These too, men who testified too whip arounds that may never have existed are also honourable men.

Mr X, being an honourable man would never have sent a loyal, trusting female employee out to bear false witness under oath thus committing perjury.
Nor having done so and the falseness of her witness being exposed would he have stayed silent, stum, without squawk or word while she was embarrassed, threatened with criminal trial & exposed as a liar & a perjurer.

He would not have done so for he is an honourable man.

So are they all, these others, honourable men.
Honourable men surely may not be perjurers.

If perjury and suborning of perjury had occurred before a tribunal such acts would be a criminal conspiracy. Such crimes would be investigated and incur a level public opprobrium as to disqualify the criminal or criminals from public life.

We live in a nation of laws, bound together by respect for law as the ONLY barrier between us and savagery. Perjury attacks the very basis of law, makes courts unworkable and evidence useless.

So are they all, all honourable men.

If these things had happened we would know, would we not? The vigilance of the investigation and the enormity of the crime would be a guarantee of that. We trust the authorities to whom we have, in our soverign wisdom, delegated the task of gaurding the gates, minding the oaths and keeping what pieces we hold dear. Some pieces may be too dear, too valuable, the cost of their loss to high allow for their losing.

We trust.

We can trust the honourable men.

We trust and in the great and honoured, we trust, and in the citizens previously of entirely unblemished character and reputation ,we trust, and in the vigilance of the lawful authorities who guard the gates, mind the oaths and keep the pieces we trust, trusting that perjury could not occur unpunished nor the suborning of perjury happen uninvestigated and unpunished, nor a that criminal conspiracy to hide the truth from a tribunal set by The Houses of the Oireachtais  could go unmarked, unimpeded and unpunished. In that, too, in our awful innocence, as in God, tarmacadam and the inevitability of unhappiness in soap opera, we trust.

We are a trusting people.

This blog contains NO reference to real people, living or dead. Mr X is of course an honourable man.)

Follow me on Twitter