The art of knowing everything before the evidence arrives

Aug 07, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

(Kaieteur News) – There is a peculiar tendency among many local commentators to look at a disaster and see a conspiracy before the investigators have found the wreckage. These commentators possess the rare strategic gift of knowing not merely what happened, but why it happened, who benefited from it and what the government was thinking when it happened—all before the evidence has finished sinking to the bottom of the Atlantic.

It is a remarkable intellectual accomplishment. Most ordinary people wait for the facts. But there are some commentators who apparently regard facts as something that can be collected later, once the conclusion has been safely reached.

Their argument usually begins with the obvious: the death of seventy-three people is a national tragedy. It then asserts something that no one will disagree with: the circumstances surrounding the sinking deserve the most rigorous investigation. So far, everyone is happily marching in the same direction.

From there, however, the argument performs a remarkable transformation. Questions become conclusions. Possibilities become facts. Disagreements become evidence of political motive. Administrative decisions become manifestations of a strategy. Errors become deceptions. Omissions become conspiracies. And, by the time the paragraph reaches its final sentence, the government is apparently engaged in a carefully orchestrated campaign of blame avoidance. It is an impressive journey from perhaps to therefore.

The captain and others are charged while the vessel remains underwater, and we are invited to see a scandal. But the fact that two things occur simultaneously does not establish that one invalidates the other. The existence of a submerged wreck does not automatically suspend the operation of criminal law.

A murder charge does not require the accused ship to be physically raised from the seabed before a prosecution can begin. Nor does the existence of a Commission of Inquiry prevent the police or prosecutors from investigating suspected criminal conduct. These are separate processes, serving different purposes, and may proceed simultaneously.

The existence of a statutory procedure for investigating marine casualties, by itself, does not establish that a criminal investigation or a Commission of Inquiry is unlawful, improper or politically motivated. The fact that Parliament has provided one investigative mechanism does not necessarily mean that every other lawful mechanism becomes unavailable.

The argument becomes particularly strained when it treats the unrecovered wreck as though it were the only possible source of evidence. Criminal charges are based on evidence, not on whether a wreck has been physically recovered. Witness statements, inspection records, maintenance records, certification documents, loading records, communications, photographs, video, expert assessments and other documentary material may all form part of a criminal investigation.

Indeed, if physical recovery of a wreck were an absolute prerequisite to criminal prosecution, one wonders what the criminal justice system would do whenever an aircraft disappeared into the deep ocean, a building collapsed and buried its contents, or a body was never recovered. Would justice simply issue an apology and wait for the tide?

One may reasonably question the sufficiency or credibility of the evidence. One may argue that the prosecution is premature. One may even ask whether the evidence satisfies the requirements for murder. Those are legitimate questions and should be asked. But one cannot simply announce that the absence of the wreck means the prosecution has somehow proceeded before the evidence exists.

There is another curious leap in the argument: the suggestion that the existence of possible shipping offences somehow makes murder charges inherently suspect. It does not follow. Different offences can arise from the same facts. A person may commit a regulatory offence and, depending upon the evidence and the applicable law, potentially commit a much more serious criminal offence arising from the same conduct.

The fact that a ship may have been unseaworthy does not prove murder. But neither does the existence of a seaworthiness offence prevent investigators from examining whether other criminal offences may have been committed.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that every reasonable salvage option should be exhausted. If experts believe the vessel can be recovered safely and at a reasonable cost, there is a powerful argument for doing so. The families are entitled to expect that every reasonable effort will be made to determine what happened.

But where is the evidence that the government is deliberately refusing to recover the vessel because it wants the evidence to disappear? None is presented.

There is a difference between saying, the government should do more to recover the wreck, and saying, the government does not want the wreck recovered because it fears what the wreck will reveal. The first is an argument. The second is an allegation requiring evidence.

In the meantime, the Barima lies beneath the Atlantic. The Commission has work to do. The courts have work to do. Investigators have work to do. And the country has every right to demand answers.

But until those answers exist, the honest intellectual position is not to pretend certainty. It is to preserve doubt.

We should investigate everything, question everything and assume nothing that the evidence has not established. The sea, inconveniently, has not yet supplied the footnotes.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper

---

• art, Evidence, knowing everything, Peeping Tom

---