I tried to post this under your question by I kept getting the message that Java was void.

You ask what I feel about granting immunity:

A difficult question. I’ve now got to stop moaning and be constructive. I’m not sure I know how.

My instinct is to say that if you can’t trust anyone to tell the truth without inducements you can’t trust them to tell the truth.

The FIA do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as explained by Werewolf. So we have the threshold of the balance of probabilities. It you can’t reach that without some kind of prepayment then your case must be pretty weak.

Further, the FIA has protection against a duff decision built-in to the law. To go into pope mode and grant forgiveness of sins without repentance seems an abuse of the protection.

The penalty for Flav, the sponsors, Renault itself and, as you pointed out, the Renault workers, is severe. The decision must be 100% certain. Anything else is a betrayal of the FIA’s responsibility. The innocent victims in all of this cannot be seen as collateral damage.

Further, and this is a personal moral stance I know, ignoring all the political implications which the FIA must have cognisance of, if three people have conspired then they should all be punished.

I had a hero, a detective sergeant who criticised me for my long interviews in order to obtain confessions. He said: If you can’t prove it without a cough, you shouldn’t try and prove it with. It was easy for him because he was a real thieftaker. But the premise is a good one.

Many people have suffered in this matter already. Heaven knows what is going through the minds of the team workers and their families. How will they feel after, perhaps, losing their houses, their kids education, their holidays and their security to see Piquet walk free and back to his life of indulgent luxury? SBS CEO anyone?

I know life is not fair but the FIA have treated Piquet as some kind of hero for, if he is to be believed, keeping stum about the incident for 12 months and then, when galvanised into action by his sacking, eventually got daddy to go to the FIA. Some hero. But some reward, eh?

My personal experience of those offered some kind of deal – never immunity at my level – is that they remain selective in their memory. Informants are one thing, co-conspirators are another. My belief always was that they started lying for their mates and ended up lying against them. Either way, not to be trusted.

You suggest in your question that they are being given immunity for the truth. That’s not quite correct. They are being given immunity for saying what the prosecution wants to hear. A difference, and not a subtle one. Piquet is not an insider, giving evidence against those for whom he worked. This is against, if he is to be believed, those who conspired with him.

So to be rather Micawberish, in short I don’t trust evidence gained by absolution. But, as importantly, if Piquet and Pat have conspired, they should be punished. And severely.

I hope, but rather doubt, that I’ve made my feelings clear on the matter.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

Without wishing to appear patronising, I’ve got to agree with your suggestion of ‘breaking’ your own witnesses. And I love your “Today’s complainant . . . ” quote. But let’s not be too cycnical. But then you weren’t.

As for going up against me in court, I had, and earned, the reputation of being a ‘difficult’ witness according to the head of our local Crown Prosecution unit, and that was amongst the CPS as well as defence lawyers. Being only human I was rather proud of the description and viewd it as an accolade. I lived up to it. You can’t help it really.

And I’ve got to say that at this stage, given the info available to us, I’d feel a lot safer on the defence side than the prosecution.

When first in CID I had the advantage of a DS whose idea of preparing a case file was to look at it from the defence point of view. I’ve seen him make dozens of pages of notes. He used to get excited and would often drag me over to point out some fault in the evidence then send me out to take a statement to rectify it. The odd thing is that I never found that the defence took so much trouble.

If he was the senior investigating officer for this one, I’d have so much overtime I’d be able to afford that loft conversion I’ve been desiring for years.

I’d suggest that a lot depends on Pat though. He strikes me an honest man. That could be the strongest bit of the defence or its weak point.

Depending on what he actually had done.

If the prosecution attack him and he stands firm then Mosley/FIA might well suffer a lot of damage at a time when Todt, Mosley’s annointed one, needs to be seen as Mr Clean.

Difficult call for them. I feel really sorry for them. No, really really sorry.

Is it possible to retrieve the fuel load data?

Firstly, the radio transcripts released so far are pretty meaningless, and only show concern from the team for Nelson, and disdain from Briatore; no change there.

Also, Symonds’ interview transcript sounds much worse than it is – he is being careful not to incriminate himself; remember Melbourne this year and Hamilton’s thoughtless lie that proved so costly?

The pre-race ‘meeting’ is also odd, if one reads between the lines. Was it simply an informal briefing that has been made to sound like “The Singapore GP Symonds/Briatore/Piquet race-fixing conspiracy committee”; reading the coverage, one would think so. Also, Symonds briefing Piquet with a map of the circuit? That in itself indicates nothing out of the ordinary.

My theory is this whole business is little more than a hit on Briatore’s position at Renault. He’s the target.