Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Sworn evidence counters PM's unsworn recollections

As I have blogged here and here the evidence in Court on the speeding trial shows the decision was the PM's.

This trial need not have happened. That is most important to understand.

If the PM had said, "the motorcade travelled at the speeds it did because I said I needed to make the airport in time for the 4.50pm flight" there would be no case to answer.

Instead for over a year we have had nothing but dissembling and sophistry from the PM.
She has said variously:

1. I was not aware of any speeding
2. The motorcade was not travelling in an unsafe manner.
3. If the motorcade was speeding then that was an operational Police decision
4. The speed was an operational matter and I did not ask them to speed to get me to the airport to make a certain flight.

Marrying these comments with the sworn court record reveals the extent of the PM's sophistry.

It is clear from the reports of the testimony of the Police that they were in no doubt that the reason for completing the journey at the speed they did was because the PM wanted it.

Officer Vallender's testimony:
"She knows what her itinerary is; I don't. It's not for me to question it. If she's got to get somewhere and she wants to get somewhere, she gets there. As far as I am concerned, that's that."

What is really galling is that to cleanse the PM's hands from this incident she is prepared to have 5 policemen and a 1 civilian driver swing.

The evidence we now see shows how bad she is.

No comments: