A prosecution still required

Imagine you are running a business and you suspect something has gone drastically wrong. Let’s say it appears that some money is missing. Your reaction, of course, is to call in an investigator with sweeping powers.

Let’s say that after two years, and millions of dollars spent on the investigation, the investigator comes to you with some preliminary conclusions. One of your staff – let’s call him Jones – has tried to disrupt the investigation. This is pretty serious, you agree. Jones needs to be disciplined. But your principal concern is with the original investigation. Where’s the money?

“What money?” the investigator replies.

“The missing money,” you press him. “You were appointed to investigate some missing money. Where is it? Who stole it?”

“Oh that,” he responds. “That’s all dealt with. There wasn’t any missing money”.

“What do you mean, wasn’t any?”

“Well, it turns out that that money was spent quite legitimately, by another chap, Smith. Found that out on my first day”.

“But if you found that out on your first day, what have you been doing for the last two years, apart from spending millions of dollars of my money?”

“Well, I have been pursuing Jones, of course. He disrupted my investigation”.

“What investigation? There was nothing for you to investigate. Why didn’t you tell me this on your first day?”

“Oh, don’t be silly. This investigation is my chance to make my name. I had to cover up the facts about who was really responsible or I would have been out of a job”.

So, what I want to know is this:

When does Patrick Fitzgerald get prosecuted for perverting the course of justice? And when will he be sent a bill for the whole pointless investigation?

View print friendly version

All information © copyright Quentin Langley 2017
Contact editor@quentinlangley.net
RSS 1.0 Feed