There Is No Suggestion That You Have An Unhealthy Interest In the Murder of Michael McGurk.

 

The NSW premier planted a tree today at Rooty Hill Public School. There is no suggestion that the Premier , or the tree or any at Rooty Hill Public School was involved with the McGurk Murder.

There is no suggestion that the nursery that supplied the tree, the tuck shop ladies at Rooty Hill , the Premier’s driver or any of the attendant media had involvement with the murder of Michael McGurk.

And in saying there is no suggestion we mean there is no suggestion. We are not saying that in a snide ironic way in order that you might draw an inference that there is a suggestion of involvement. We know you will try to read between, above and below the lines in order to discern what we know but cannot say but in this particular case, the Premier was simply turning a sod at a local public school. He is wearing a hard hat not as protection against potential assassins but as a normal part of OH&S requirements which have put us all in lime vests and hard hats whatever we may do.

And  so we are very genuinely and strenuously suggesting that  no one at this event or anyone reading about this event here in the paper today was involved with the McGurk Murder. 

At the moment in the state of NSW and Sydney in particular it’s hard to see where all this starts and finishes.  So it’s best to err on the safe side lest we find ourselves in court for years to come. 

Which is not a suggestion that any who may or may not have been involved with the murder of Michael McGurk would resort to legal chicanery and procrastination in order to delay or pervert the course of justice. Nor do we in any way imply that respected members of the legal profession would use arcane legal tactics in order to protect their clients who may be quite legitimately addressing an erroneous suggestion that they were in some way involved in the McGurk Murder. Not that we are suggesting that they were. 

Or if they were, we would certainly include the word ‘alleged’ as often as possible.  We support their right to be judged  innocent until proven guilty. Although the amount of space we give to them and the furtive looking pictures of them lunching with people we don’t suggest are involved in the murder of Michael McGurk but simply suggest they seem to have lunch with him quite often may give rise to the impression that we believe them to be guilty but we are in no way suggesting that.

Whatever you think we’re suggesting we’re not.

Neither are we suggesting anything by material we omit.

If you were at a lunch on a such and such a date at, for example, the Tuscany Restaurant in Leichhardt and we haven’t mentioned you or published your  photograph this does not suggest that we think you were involved in the murder of Michael McGurk.

If we have referred to someone obliquely or with a nickname or acronym no inference should be drawn that there is a suggestion that are more likely to have been involved in the murder of Michael McGurk. They are no more under suspicion than anyone else.

Not that anyone is under suspicion at this time. They are helping police with their inquiries. Which means just that. Really.

At this point we have nothing further. There is no suggestion that if there is anything further that it will involve a Premier, a tree or Rooty Hill Public School.