The Ocampo Six and their Luggage

Anybody who has ever dealt with police anywhere on earth knows that they are extremely unreliable and prone to tell lies especially in court. I have never really understood why of all the places policemen like to tell lies inside the one place where a lie would have serious consequences.

One lawyer I know found out that many decades ago and decided to make sure this comes to the benefit of his clients. He specializes in cross examining policemen, getting them to tell tall tales or just plainly lie and then use that to dismiss all the good evidence they may have introduced in court. This advocate does not need to get the police to lie about the case; it is not necessary! He just has to get them lying about something or anything.  In one case I know of, another lawyer whose client had been caught over speeding in his sports car had run out of options. However despite having all the best technical evidence which included the speed camera etc, the prosecution needed the policeman who had held the radar to introduce the evidence.

The man, a veteran of testifying in court, was relaxed. He came in chewing gum more to relax than to cover over his hangover. So as he took the stand, he did not see it fit to remove the gum from his mouth but simply continued chewing it. Everyone including the judge saw him chewing gum. They may not have liked the habit but then there is no law preventing anybody - not even a policeman - from chewing gum. And that is when the advocate saw his chance.

When the time came for him to cross examine, he asked him about his profession, his experience and noted that he had testified in hundreds of cases, to which the policeman nodded with satisfaction, pride and a smile. He sure had done a very good job of upholding the law. That is when the advocate calmly asked him if "by the way" he was chewing gum in court?

The way it was worded, the policeman was not sure if he had somehow fallen foul of an archaic law that somebody had forgotten to periodically dust off the soot. He therefore made one cardinal error: Assuming that nobody was watching him, he carefully bent forward as if to tie his laces and spat, nay, let drop from his mouth the gum. He rose up and pretended he had not heard the question. The advocate like a leopard that has sensed fear in the prey, moved for the kill but not fast - stealthily! He repeated the question still pouring over his papers and as if not interested in the answer. For that is exactly what he wanted the policeman to think! The policeman answered: NO

That response was shocking. The prosecutor would later say it was that moment that he knew he had lost the case. The judge who kind of anticipated some trick with the questions and had a mind to stop the fishing expedition would later confess to his wife that he kind of let it play out for the kicks. All that would  happen later.

Right now, the advocate jumped out of his seat and exclaimed: I BEG YOUR PARDON!

It would take a short process for the judge to order the bailiff to verify what the policeman dropped on the ground. It was under his shoe. He owned up. The prosecutor with drew the case rather than have his star witnesses declared a perjurer and for ever never testify in any court of law. The speeding money bags sped off from the court having signed yet another big check for the advocate.

So much for the anecdote. The bottom line is that policemen lie.

But there is one exception: Leaking facts about crimes!

The police found a way of making some extra cash on the cases they are investigating. It does not matter whether they are in Europe, US, Africa, Asia or Oceania - policemen leak.

When I was told that the source of the 10 dollar lost bag was a policeman, I said to myself  "there is something to that!" Later, we have been told that it was a lie. I take it in to consideration that as of now, the newspaper has not retracted the story and nobody is suing for "defamation".

That made me wonder what actually happened. Here is my intelligent guess:

Uhuru finally listened to his advocate.

The advocate told him that filing a complaint with the police would generate a formal police complaint. His complaint would form fact which can stand in a court of law. It is the same or better than an affidavit.

The affidavit - for that is what I want to call it - would disclose clear offences under money laundering and customs statutes of Kenya and the Netherlands. I have no idea if he stopped over in any other place or if he flew directly. However if he had the money on arrival in Holland then he broke the law and made himself guilty of several counts; Every day he stayed there without declaring the huge treasure was an offence committed. They day he flew out with the money still undeclared is the day he also committed several serious offences.

So some lawyer must have got to Uhuru and asked him to for once shut his mouth unless he thought Holland "ne kwa nyina"

Suddenly there was no lost bag. A paltry ten million dollars in exchange for freedom.

Let's hope the Dutch Police believe the spin and not the police leaks.