I was starting to feel more confident. He had seen the logic in the argument that there were 2 sets of objectives and that made think I could work with him. If he had denied the logic of what I said just because he had to piss up a post or he didn't like me then the investigation would be doomed to failure. It's the "yes but" response which can be summarised as "yes but I don't want to accept that even though it is correct". There's a fine line between a "can-do" mentality that all investigators should have and a "Cannute" mentality: you know, King Canute of England - thought he could (because he was king) turn back the tides so he went in to the sea and commanded the tide to go back. Actually - the truth may be a bit more realistic: rumour has it he was surrounded by sycophants who told him he could do anything because he was King. He demonstrated the absurdity of what was said by commanding the tide to retreat. True or not I prefer that version. However, I digress.
The thing is, I can do analysis, I cannot do miracles. If Lord Todd has insisted on his original objectives I would have had no choice but to throw the towel in. I have tried in the past stating the consequences of what these idiots are saying (and you are an idiot if you deny logic with no logical justification - you might as well tell the tide to go back). It has covered my arse but in the end the invoices were never paid and I went hungry.
So we were left with 2 objectives. I re-stated them to make sure he was clear.
"Ok - so we are left with increasing your knowledge such that you know
1. How Mr Court's assailant gained entry to his room
2. How Mr Court's assailant left the premises.
Next question - the guts of this investigation is that you want to increase security. Given that, do you not need to know
1. Who carried out the attack
2. Are they a threat to you and to know that you will need to know
3. why they carried out the attack?"
I was surprised that Lord Todd looked surprised. Was I missing something or wasn't what I just said obvious? But he definitely looked surprised, surprisingly. He thought before answering - always a good sign and I wish more of my clients would do that. The silence wasn't uncomfortable for me - he needed to think to get his answer right so that I would be working on the right things for his money.
Finally he said: "Yes, I suppose you are right. But the truth is....dammit the truth is I don't care about the butler. If he was mixed up in some criminal crap and they got him I don't care why they did it or what the criminal crap was. If it was a way to get at me then yes, I need to know. But I don't think it was." He paused again and seemed to reach a decision. "Ok, I want you to focus on the first 2 objectives as we agreed and follow up on the rest as second priority."
This was acceptable to me: what Lord Todd and his ilk don't get is that 99% of the time when they are talking priorities they don't twig it won't have any material impact on what I do. It's not like I can decide not to investigate something because I know it will only help achieve certain objectives. If I know which would help with what at the outset I would already know the answer! The critical point was that the scope of the investigation included achieving the objectives of knowing who attacked and why.
"Great," I said. "So let's sort out the rest of the scope."
The eyes and the sigh but I was getting used to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment