Monday, June 20, 2005
Wierd
This case is wierd.
Virtually everything is suppressed. Why would the accused past employment details be suppressed? Their current employment details too? Details of the offences etc.
Now I know nothing about this case at all. Nothing. Not a boo peep. But when I heard on the radio this afternoon that the female involved was seconded to 'the Mount' in December of 1988 for six weeks, for work, I immediately became suspicious.
Who would go to the Mount for work for six weeks over Christmas? Is it linked to why their prior occupations are suppressed? I think I know the answers.
I'm not sure whether I should be speculating but they can't suppress ideas can they?
Virtually everything is suppressed. Why would the accused past employment details be suppressed? Their current employment details too? Details of the offences etc.
Now I know nothing about this case at all. Nothing. Not a boo peep. But when I heard on the radio this afternoon that the female involved was seconded to 'the Mount' in December of 1988 for six weeks, for work, I immediately became suspicious.
Who would go to the Mount for work for six weeks over Christmas? Is it linked to why their prior occupations are suppressed? I think I know the answers.
I'm not sure whether I should be speculating but they can't suppress ideas can they?
Comments:
<< Home
The Herald confirms my suspicions this morning Adolf when they say 2 of the four were 'public servants' at the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home
