Anand: No evidence linking Jack to bribery charges.

[Flex]

Anand: No evidence linking Jack to bribery charges.
By Ria Taitt (Express).

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has said that Works Minister Jack Warner is in the clear on bribery allegations.

Ramlogan said the Police Service would have given the utmost priority to an investigation into an allegation against a serving senior minister. He was speaking at yesterday's post-Cabinet news conference at the Office of the Prime Minister in St Clair.

"If they found no evidence (of bribery), it is because none exists at the moment," he said. On the Customs offence of signing a false declaration, Ramlogan said it would be for former FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed bin Hammam to answer this charge, if it is substantiated, but it does not implicate Warner.

Ramlogan was commenting on the apparent contradiction between the Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs's statement that the police had stopped investigations based on advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the DPP's own comments about continuing investigations under the Customs Act.

Ramlogan said it was clear "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that what the DPP was saying, that there was no evidence on the file that was sent to him to substantiate further investigation, except under the Customs law.

"What the CoP has been trying to communicate is this: 'Look, we can go no further. This is nothing more that we have.'" Ramlogan said because Minister Warner is the subject of intense media scrutiny and speculation, it was not a reason for saying that evidence exists or manufacturing evidence.

The allegations relate to claims of bribery made by Caribbean football officials, following a May 2011 meeting at the Hyatt Regency hotel, to support bin Hammam in his campaign.

[Coop's]

  :rotfl:these people have to be joking,i can't believe this.

[Bourbon]

There was enough evidence to hold real people under the Anti-Gang legislation though...so I dont think its the police's fault.

 

[Football supporter]

Disgusting, boldface cover up. 

[Sam]

If Anand Ramlogan, Kamla and Gibbs is buddies, do you really expect them to charge him ?

All ah we in one family..

[truetrini]

Notwithstanding the FACT that the police did a shoddy job by not interviewing several persons directly involved in the alleged bribery.  I find the taped evidence to be  very weak.  When I refer to taped evidence I am referring to the tape where Jack is seen and heard addressing the CFU representatives urging them to support Bin Hamman.  I saw and heard little to suggest anything close to bribery.

Now added with other evidence I am sure a case could be made if properly investigated.

[Bakes]

Notwithstanding the FACT that the police did a shoddy job by not interviewing several persons directly involved in the alleged bribery.  I find the taped evidence to be  very weak.  When I refer to taped evidence I am referring to the tape where Jack is seen and heard addressing the CFU representatives urging them to support Bin Hamman.  I saw and heard little to suggest anything close to bribery.

Now added with other evidence I am sure a case could be made if properly investigated.

Really?  There is more than enough to suggest that bribery occurred and that Jack was at the center of it all, implicating himself.  That said, Anand is a dangerous man...  the DPP never said that there wasn't any evidence of bribery, he said there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that a crime was committed.  There is a difference and anyone who insists that there was no bribery only fooling themselves, because they sure not fooling the rest of us.  There was bribery and Jack offered it in exchange for votes for Bin Hamman... however this is not a crime, hence no prosecution.  This is still conduct unbecoming a public official, let alone a government minister.  That the nation's purported Attorney General cannot (or refuses to) acknowledge this is beyond troubling.

A second matter is the violation of the Customs Act.  Anand stating that the ONLY person who would have violated it is Bin Hamman since he filed a false declaration.  Well that would be true only if BH was the one who brought the cash into the country.  At this point we don't know who did, so how can Anand exonerate Jack prematurely?  Also, what of the rumors that Jack gave word to Airport authorities to let BH pass thru w/o scrutiny?  Has that been investigated?  Has Anand (omnipotent and omniscient as he is) determined that this did not take place?

Buckle up TnT... allyuh have 3 more years of these people to contend with.

[truetrini]

Again..I was dealing with the TAPED evidence alone.  Much is being made of the speech Jack came to the CFU delegates..there was nothing it that to suggest bribery.

[Bakes]

Again..I was dealing with the TAPED evidence alone.  Much is being made of the speech Jack came to the CFU delegates..there was nothing it that to suggest bribery.

I doh even think you yuhself believe that nonsense, lol

[Storeboy]

I wish they could lock him up.  But it is not about how we feel.  I feel that there was bribery, but could I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  That is what Anand have to go by.  If he don't have that, then we all whistling in the wind.   

[Football supporter]

Notwithstanding the FACT that the police did a shoddy job by not interviewing several persons directly involved in the alleged bribery.  I find the taped evidence to be  very weak.  When I refer to taped evidence I am referring to the tape where Jack is seen and heard addressing the CFU representatives urging them to support Bin Hamman.  I saw and heard little to suggest anything close to bribery.

Now added with other evidence I am sure a case could be made if properly investigated.

Really?  There is more than enough to suggest that bribery occurred and that Jack was at the center of it all, implicating himself.  That said, Anand is a dangerous man...  the DPP never said that there wasn't any evidence of bribery, he said there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that a crime was committed.  There is a difference and anyone who insists that there was no bribery only fooling themselves, because they sure not fooling the rest of us.  There was bribery and Jack offered it in exchange for votes for Bin Hamman... however this is not a crime, hence no prosecution.  This is still conduct unbecoming a public official, let alone a government minister.  That the nation's purported Attorney General cannot (or refuses to) acknowledge this is beyond troubling.

A second matter is the violation of the Customs Act.  Anand stating that the ONLY person who would have violated it is Bin Hamman since he filed a false declaration.  Well that would be true only if BH was the one who brought the cash into the country.  At this point we don't know who did, so how can Anand exonerate Jack prematurely?  Also, what of the rumors that Jack gave word to Airport authorities to let BH pass thru w/o scrutiny?  Has that been investigated?  Has Anand (omnipotent and omniscient as he is) determined that this did not take place?

Buckle up TnT... allyuh have 3 more years of these people to contend with.

Bakes, yuh way off target with this.....we have 3 more years until their next 5 years! And the way things are going, by 2012 the constitution may have been changed a la TTFF, CFU, CONCACAF. Remember, they have a master tactician at the helm. If Jack can reconfigure the planet, I'm damn sure he can lock down T&T.

[Bakes]

I wish they could lock him up.  But it is not about how we feel.  I feel that there was bribery, but could I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  That is what Anand have to go by.  If he don't have that, then we all whistling in the wind.   

uhm... no.  Try and follow along, it's not about what they can prove or not prove.  What Jack did isn't a crime... period.  Even if they could prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt he'd still never see the inside of a court because his actions did not involve his public role as a minister. Private individuals can bribe the hell out of each other all they want... and Jack was acting in his private capacity.

[SWF Reporter]

¿Habla ingles, DPP? No lo entiende el AG
(By Wired868)

Is English the first language of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard?
The DPP was unimpressed with Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs' assertion that a police probe into bribery allegations surrounding Warner should be closed and retorted with: "you need to go further with the investigation" and "I have not cleared anybody."
Does everyone get what he is saying?
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan still didn't feel Gaspard was being precise.
Read More: http://wired868.com/868/index.php/good-mornin-neighbour/332-habla-ingles-dpp-no-lo-entiende-el-ag

[Sando]

Jack is wrong and any fool could see this.

Furthermore, he made deals behind his boss back and said in the interview his boss (Sepp knew)... he know he was doing something worng.

[truetrini]

Again..I was dealing with the TAPED evidence alone.  Much is being made of the speech Jack came to the CFU delegates..there was nothing it that to suggest bribery.

I doh even think you yuhself believe that nonsense, lol

AGain, I just looked at that video again, and there is insufficient evidence there to suggest any bribery.  "When Mohamed Bin Hammam asked to come to the Caribbean he wanted to bring some silver plaques and wooden trophies and bunting and so on, and told me to bring for 30 people would be too much luggage.

"I told him he did not need to bring anything but if he wanted to bring anything to bring something equivalent to the value of the gift that he brought.

"I said to him if you bring cash, I don't want you to give cash to anybody, but when you do you can give it to the CFU and the CFU will give it to his members.

Warner says on the video: "When Mohamed Bin Hammam asked to come to the Caribbean he wanted to bring some silver plaques and wooden trophies and bunting and so on, and told me to bring for 30 people would be too much luggage.

"I told him he did not need to bring anything but if he wanted to bring anything to bring something equivalent to the value of the gift that he brought.

"I said to him if you bring cash, I don't want you to give cash to anybody, but when you do you can give it to the CFU and the CFU will give it to his members.

"Because I don't want [it] to even remotely appear that anyone has any obligation to vote for you because of what gifts you have given them, and he fully accepted that."

Warner also says in the video that he would return any money if the officials chose not to keep it.

"I know there are some people here who believe they are more pious than thou," he continued.

"If you are pious go to a church friends, but the fact is that our business is our business.

"If there is anybody here who has a conscience and wishes to send back the money I am willing to take the money and give it back to him at any moment."

[Football supporter]

Isn't this similar to when a gangster visits a jewellry shop and offers his services to ensure nothing happens to the property? He says "This is a rough area, crime is on the increase, people could get hurt" He doesn't make any kind of threat, but the owner knows that if he doesn't pay up, there will be repercussions.

You can't prosecute anybody for stating negatives. But I believe its against FIFA rules to provide cash gifts without their consent. And Warner would know this and is therefore implicated. Then there is the question of where the money came from. If it was brought into the country undeclared, did Warner know this? And is it his duty as a Cabinet Minister to advise bin Hammam of this?

Plus, there are more damning affidavits confirming more direct involvement.

To me, there seems no apparent way that Warner can be charged by the police. The question is: was he acting in a manner that brings disgrace on the nation? Was this conduct unbecoming of a Minister? Was he following the PP mandate of honesty, integrity and transparency?

[truetrini]

Isn't this similar to when a gangster visits a jewellry shop and offers his services to ensure nothing happens to the property? He says "This is a rough area, crime is on the increase, people could get hurt" He doesn't make any kind of threat, but the owner knows that if he doesn't pay up, there will be repercussions.

You can't prosecute anybody for stating negatives. But I believe its against FIFA rules to provide cash gifts without their consent. And Warner would know this and is therefore implicated. Then there is the question of where the money came from. If it was brought into the country undeclared, did Warner know this? And is it his duty as a Cabinet Minister to advise bin Hammam of this?

Plus, there are more damning affidavits confirming more direct involvement.

To me, there seems no apparent way that Warner can be charged by the police. The question is: was he acting in a manner that brings disgrace on the nation? Was this conduct unbecoming of a Minister? Was he following the PP mandate of honesty, integrity and transparency?

FIFA has a history of "gift giving", indeed a culture of "gift giving."  I agree that his conduct is unbecoming...but based solely..NOTE I say solely on this taped evidence, I see no bribery.

[Big Magician]

green fig

[Bakes]

AGain, I just looked at that video again, and there is insufficient evidence there to suggest any bribery.

"Insufficient" in your mind.  The average, ordinary reasonable prudent person (ORPP) is likely to conclude that despite his bald pronouncements, the exact purpose of the gifts, in light of the circumstances, gives rise to a presumption that bribery was afoot.  But what would I know.

[truetrini]

AGain, I just looked at that video again, and there is insufficient evidence there to suggest any bribery.

"Insufficient" in your mind.  The average, ordinary reasonable prudent person (ORPP) is likely to conclude that despite his bald pronouncements, the exact purpose of the gifts, in light of the circumstances, gives rise to a presumption that bribery was afoot.  But what would I know.

AGAIN!  The tape standing alone is NOT sufficient to convict anyone!   I already stated that with proper investigation there would be evidence..but the TAPE ALONE...is being made a big deal by many...I listened to it several times and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of an attempted bribe there.  NOT ONE shred of evidence that can stand the scrutinity

[Bakes]

AGAIN!  The tape standing alone is NOT sufficient to convict anyone!   I already stated that with proper investigation there would be evidence..but the TAPE ALONE...is being made a big deal by many...I listened to it several times and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of an attempted bribe there.  NOT ONE shred of evidence that can stand the scrutinity

Let's try and maintain focus here... Jack didn't commit any crime so nobody talking about evidence "to convict".  You keep saying that there is no evidence of an attempted bribe... which is laughable.  Repeating the mantra to yourself won't make it any more convincing.  Note that not even Gaspard has come out and said that, which would be tantamount to an exoneration, which Gaspard has pointedly made clear was not his intent.  There is no evidence of a crime being committed, but enough evidence of bribery, including on the tape.  Knowing you you'll just come back repeating the same but my experience tells me that there's more than enough evidence of bribery on the tape... you can continue to say otherwise.