Linden COI – The evidence speaks for itself

Nov 04, 2012 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

Hearing of testimony in the Linden Commission of Inquiry has completed. While the PPP Government Ministers and Advisors continue to pollute the broadcast spectrum with their version of what transpired at the hearings, they blatantly omit many pertinent facts that point to the police actions on the fateful day of July 18, 2012.
Chairman of the Alliance For Change, Nigel Hughes, in his capacity as Attorney for the relatives of the deceased, brought these points to the attention of the Commission and for public discussion when he addressed the Commission on Friday, November 2, 2012.
In his address, Hughes made it abundantly clear that there was enough evidence to support the position that it was the Police who shot the three deceased and injured the Lindeners. Hughes made the following arguments:
1. The deceased and injured were all shot with 00 pellets which were discharged from a 00 cartridge. The injured were in excess of 20 persons.
2. The pellets could only have been discharged from a shotgun. Not a hand gun or rifle.
3. That eliminates the possibility of either a concealed weapon or sniper.
4. A shotgun is at least three feet in length and hence would have been clearly visible at the time of the shooting.
5. There were several hundred persons present at the time of the shooting and the only persons who were seen with shotguns were three police officers.
6. Superintendent Todd, who was in charge, said that he discharged several rounds from shotguns which he took from various ranks who were on the police line in uniform.
7. Todd further said that he was the only one who discharged the shotgun.
8. No witness, whether civilian or police, claimed to have seen anyone else but the police armed with a shotgun.
9. The ballistic expert, Dr. Robinson, testified that the fact that the deceased died from single pellet shots meant they had to be in excess of 30 to 40 feet away from the shooter.
10. Todd’s testimony confirms that he was in excess of that distance when he fired the shotgun
11. Todd testified that he shot the ground in an attempt to cause the pellets to ricochet. The U.K. ballistic expert, the local ballistic expert and the police investigator who visited the scene the next morning all testified that there was no evidence of any ricochet on the ground, or did the pellets show that they were fired ricochet.
12. The position from which the persons were shot was consistent with the position where the police said they fired from.
13. Todd admitted firing at least four times at the crowd yet no one in the crowd was injured with official # 04 and # 06 issued pellets. This would mean on Todd’s evidence they should all be buried in the ground or fell short of the crowd.
14. The unaccounted gunman would have had to have fired repeatedly at the crowd and not be seen. Quite a feat!
15. The police claim that they heard four loud explosions coming from the bridge. Assuming for the purpose of argument that this was the missing shooter armed with a shotgun on the bridge then several people in the crowd on the bridge would have been shot.
16. The bridge was jammed pack, so there was no space of 20 to 30 feet clear distance to allow a single shot to cause the death of protestors.
17. The only basis on which the police claim it is not their officers who killed the protestors is that they don’t issue 00 cartridges. This is the equivalent of a shooter standing over the body of a person who had just been shot and claiming that he did not shoot because he does not have the type of bullets which was found in the body of the deceased but his weapons is capable of firing that same type of bullet.
18. One of the police officers from Linden who was issued with a shotgun said he never knows what types of cartridges are issued to him when he uplifts his shotgun.
19. The ballistic results for the Linden weapons are not available. They were never sent to be tested.
On the issue of Ministerial involvement in the events:
1. Mr. Clement Rohee testified that on the 17th July he had at least a 25-minute meeting with the Commissioner of Police (COP),Seelall Persaud and Hicken at his office about the protest which was scheduled for the next day.
2. In his GINA interview on the 22nd July, he said the issue of lethal force was discussed and he was given an undertaking that no lethal force would be used.
3. He further testified that he was given a briefing in which various scenarios were given but could not give details of any of the scenarios. He said only a general overview was given, but he could not remember any details.
4. He testified that he tried getting the COP after the incident and he spoke with the COP, but he could not get details of what transpired. He tried again, could not get onto him, and that’s why he called Hicken six times, two hours later.
5. The phone record reveals that he spoke with the COP for one second.
6. After the shooting, Rohee admits in a GINA one-on-one interview on NCN, discussing the use of lethal force before the shooting with the Commissioner of Police (COP) Leroy Brumell, Deputy Commissioner Law Enforcement Seelall Persaud and Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken.
7. He claims he got an undertaking that no lethal force would be used.
8. He further says in the interview that various scenarios were discussed.
9. So no issue that the use of lethal force was discussed by Rohee.
10. If lethal force was discussed, it had to be discussed in a particular context.
11. If he obtained an undertaking that lethal force would not be used then it means that the COP, Persaud or Hicken felt they had enough power to over ride the undertaking which was given to the Minister.
12. Which police officer in Guyana would authorise the use of lethal force in a charge political protest in the light of a clear prior undertaking to the Minister?
13. Why wouldn’t the Minister on the first occasion ask who authorised the use of lethal force when he had been given a clear undertaking that it would not be used?
14. Rohee claims he ordered a report.
15. It is noteworthy that by the time of the GINA interview he was aware that lethal force had been used. Why would Rohee at that time, admit he was aware that the police would use lethal force. It would be admitting that he authorised the use of lethal force on innocent civilians during a protest by opposition supporters. Political suicide and potential criminal liability.
In short you have:
(1) A discussion about the use of lethal force involving the Minister, COP, Deputy Commissioner Law Enforcement and Hicken in which he (the Minister) claims that he got an undertaking that lethal force would not be used.
(2) No evidence of any attempt to be briefed by the COP after news of the shooting but a two-hour delay before he speaks with Hicken on five occasions but never asks who authorised the use of lethal force.
(3) A post-fact admission of a discussion on the use of lethal force, but a denial of any authorization.
So what does a discussion about the use of lethal force during a civil protest indicate?
Either it was authorised by the Minister or some police officer had enough pluck to breach an undertaking to a Minister. Take your pick.

---

---