, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simple coincidences never happen; that’s why they never invented the word.

Lincoln and Kennedy – both ex-military, both lawyers, both over 6ft tall and suffers of a genetic disease, both US Presidents sitting next to their wives (Lincoln in box number 7 at Ford’s Theatre, Kennedy in car 7 in the Dallas convoy) – weren’t both shot in the head by an assassin on a Friday by coincidence, mark Madigan’s word.

Three men named Green, Berry and Hill weren’t in 1911 hung at night in Greenberry Hill, London for the murder of a knight named Sir Edmund Hill by chance, for Pete’s sake. Or Mike’s.

Mark Twain wasn’t born the day Halley’s Comet appeared, and died the day it next appeared by chance, don’t you worry about that.

No, there’s no such thing as coincidence, and Ravbar is as guilty as sin, just ask Madigan, who although too gutless to actually come out and say it has given the biggest nudge and a wink a reader could ever need to make them believe what he is blatantly inferring is true.

But just in case anyone is blind, and can’t read between the lines, the bloke with a statuette of a shrill, narrow-tubed trumpet in his pool room restates his thesis, or more correctly reinforces his campaign of vicious libel by inference against Ravbar.

This time he’s referring directly to Hanna’s order to staff member Rob Cameron to cover up the security cameras and conflating it with Hanna’s actions more than a year later in falsifying an invoice for the truck that he (Hanna) hired – ostensibly to take the documents from his home to the tip (although any fool that does a fact check and then adds 2 and 2 together knows that’s not true either) – to come up to a conclusion that Ravbar is as guilty as sin, despite the evidence saying the opposite.

This time he sends the message to the reader by making the unsubtle, pointed ‘observation’, dripping with sarcasm, that if Ravbar’s telling the truth, then ‘Hanna is an elaborate conspirator’.

elab13 elab1

Elaborate conspirator my ass.

Any idiot can cover up some cameras to conceal the fact that they are knocking things off from work, and then a year later when they are in the gun and about to be sacked photocopy a receipt, fraudulently change the name from their own to the boss’s, and show it to the big boss. Or indeed to manufacture such a receipt – the jury’s out; in fact the jury’s out on whether he ever had such a receipt then at all, because McNaughton chose not to test his uncorroborated evidence on the issue.

But whether he photocopied the receipt, manufactured it, or simply made up the tale doesn’t really matter; because none of the three permeations suggest a grand conspirator. What they do is tell you that Hanna is simply another dumb crim with sh*t for brains and a penchant for wrongdoing, whose blatant and transparent attempt to cover-up his ill deeds were always going to bring him unstuck.

Just as Madigan’s shoddy blatant and transparent attempts to use journalistic devices to cover up his wholesale slander of Ravbar’s character, honesty and reputation will fall over as quickly as Hanna’s the shyster’s deck of cards should Ravbar elect to launch legal action against him for the wholesale reputational and professional damage that he has suffered as a consequence of Madigan’s ill-thought out and malicious attack on him.

I know a few things about defamation law, and a few things more as well; and Ravbar’s case is a lay-down misere should he choose to launch it, the surest of sure things, don’t you worry about that.

You don’t need to – Mendacious Michael Madigan will do the worrying for you.

Top work once again champ. You and your shrill narrow-tubed trumpet are a credit to the profession.