EMAILGATE ... THE AFTERMATH

So the Emailgate saga seems to be finally over with the authorities saying that there is absolutely no justiciable evidence to show that former Prime Minister Persad Bissessar conspired with her Attorney General, her National Security Adviser and a senior Cabinet Minister to murder a female journalist.


Apart from the absolutely scandalous nature of these allegations we ought to look at them very carefully and try and figure out from the available evidence who is this "anonymous" author. (For the record, I'm going to refer to the author in this post as "he" but I do acknowledge that it could easily be a "she". I simply don't know who wrote these scandalous allegations.)


So, let's start from the beginning: obviously the prime suspect would be Dr. Rowley himself. After all, he had a fairly obvious motive and we have only his word that he "found" them in his mailbox. (If you believe that, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.) But this is most unlikely. Dr. Rowley has been in Parliament since January 1987. He knows full well that you just don't stand up in Parliament and make some scandalous allegations on the basis of an anonymous report. No. Either he made up the emails himself or he knew the person who gave it to him and believed that person to be credible.


Let me say that I don't believe that Dr. Rowley made up the purported emails. I acknowledge  that this might be quite possible and I certainly wouldn't put my head on a block for this, but I really don't believe that he was the author. No. I believe that it is far more likely that somebody gave them  to him on condition of anonymity. And Dr. Rowley would have trusted that person because of who he was/is and therefore reasonably believed that he (the person who gave him the emails) would have been in a position to confirm the contents of the fake documents. Of course, in these circumstances Dr. Rowley would have believed the author and would have taken the forgeries at face value having been thoroughly duped by the perpetrator.  Now, Dr. Rowley would also know that if he promised that anonymous person that he would not disclose his identity then if he broke that promise he would never get any information again ... and politicians need information from various sources who need to keep their identities secret for all sorts of reasons. If it was feared that Dr. Rowley would "sell out" a source nobody would ever trust him again. So he needed to use the euphemism that he "found" it in his mailbox.


So? Who would have the motive to do such a dastardly act? It would have to be somebody who felt that Mrs. Persad Bissessar had treated him unfairly and had some kind of grudge against the former Prime Minister and her colleagues. So? Who could that be?


Let's do a little forensic thinking: We know that Dr. Rowley made his "disclosures" in May 2013.  What was happening then? Were there any scandals that had occurred then or before then but after the UNC came to power in 2010? It is not unreasonable to presume that the "whistleblower" was either a disgruntled politician or a disgruntled former chairman of some State enterprise who had been fired. So? What politicians or former chairmen around that time were there who might have felt that they had been treated unfairly. Was there anybody who had been fired for something that he claimed was not his fault or who had been made to take the blame for something? If so, what and who?


In Mrs. Persad Bissessar's time there were a number of dismissals of senior politicians but most of these took place AFTER May 2013. Though I can't remember any chairmen being fired in the period in question that doesn't mean that it didn't happen ... it's just that I don't remember. What took place before?  That's where we have to look.


Finally, to produce something looking like a genuine email but which is in fact a fake takes a certain skill ... a certain "computer savvy". I decided to try and produce a fake email just to see if it could be done easily. I failed miserably in my attempts. Then I went to the "experts" in my family ... my two sons (ages 17 and 20) but they told me that to produce a credible forgery you would have to have certain skills on the computer that they simply didn't possess.  So, whoever we are looking for as the author of these fake emails would have to be somebody who either possessed the requisite computer skills or ( more probably) have access to somebody whom he could trust who had the requisite computer skills. Because, a conspiracy like this would require that the author would have to trust the creator of the fake emails absolutely. So? Now we have a profile, the question is who fits it?


P.S.  The question as to who fits the profile is largely rhetorical. I strongly advise that nobody answers that question by saying something like "X" did it. Unless you have good evidence that "Mr.X" is the author I strongly advise that you keep his name to yourself. The purpose of this post is to try and make you think and to ask the questions that the police don't seem to want to know the answers to. Because, if they did, it wouldn't have taken them 6 years to close this case!