Lindener peddles back and forth on statements to the commission of inquiry.
She doubted being infront of the crowd on July 18 then changed her testimony after a statement she purportedly signed and was submitted to the commission by APNU Vanessa Kissoon was read to her, and points to her saying that she was infront of the crowd.
Bullets that killed Linden trio not used by police – UK ballistics expert confirms
New evidence…
By Lakhram Bhagirat
The ammunition recovered from the July 18 shooting at Linden is different from the regular ones are police issued, English ballistics expert, Dr Mark Nicholas Robinson Wednesday told the commission of inquiry probing the shooting incident.
This revelation has led many to believe that the shots which killed the three people during the protests in Linden were fired by someone else, thereby vindicating the police from any wrongdoing as far as the deaths are concerned. This new explosive evidence would be a slap in the face of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) which presumed that the police fired the fatal shots on the day in question.
“I was provided with a total of three rounds of ammunition, which I was told that two were used and the third has been used since 2005. One was Challenger Number 6; second, a Number 4 – those were small pellets; and the third cartridge contained 00 buck pellets, but those were different than those in question,” he said.
English ballistics expert, Dr Mark Nicholas Robinson
“… ones recovered were pellets that were coated with a light coating of copper whereas the police ammunition were just lead and I was informed that 00 pellets were never used since 2005,” Dr Robinson added. He said he visited the scene on Saturday last and spoke to witnesses and returned to Police Headquarters, Eve Leary where he conducted tests on the pellets recovered from the remains of the dead and the injured at the Police Ballistics Laboratory.
He noted that during the compilation of his reports he used information contained in the post-mortem reports by Trinidad’s pathologist Professor Hubert Daisley and government’s pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh.
In his report, Dr Robinson stated that the locations of the victims are consistent with shots having been fired along the road towards the Wismar-Mackenzie Bridge and from the road towards the Linmine Secretariat Building. He said that at the Police Headquarters he met with Sergeant Jackson who handed over the recovered pellets. “Each of the items I examined proved to be lead buckshot pellets. These are pellets which would be contained within a shotgun cartridge,” he said.
“…it’s not possible to give a calibre just from the examination of pellets, but I found the most common calibre is 12-gauge, and I’m certainly aware that a number of manufacturers make buckshot cartridges in 12-gauge and I have no reason to suspect that the calibre of gun used could be anything but 12-gauge,” he opined.
He explained that pellets can be measured by their size and weight. He was also shown a photograph of the police holding a gun and was asked to determine the calibre of the weapon.
“You can’t tell the gauge just by looking at the shotgun, but nothing suggests anything but 12-gauge, they are pump-action shotguns, so I have no reason to suspect that they are anything but capable of discharging 12-gauge cartridges,” he responded.
No evidence of ricochet effect
Commander of the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) ranks who were deployed to Linden on July 18, Assistant Superintendent Patrick Todd had testified that he utilised the shotguns to fire into the ground to produce a ricochet effect to scare the protesters.
However, Dr Robinson’s report stated that the pellets recovered from the bodies bore no evidence of having “ricocheted from a road surface”.
“The pellets recovered bore no evidence of being ricocheted from a road surface, because lead shotgun pellets are very soft and if it was to strike a road surface, it would be badly deformed and there would be traces of debris on. I looked for evidence of debris and evidence of it being deformed but I found no such evidence,” he said as he sought to explain.
“Each victim was hit by one, two, or three pellets, now distance determination with shotguns depends on the shot pattern produced. When all the pellets hit the target and the pellets spread out, the farther they are away from the muzzle and if fired into a wall, it would produce a circular pattern,” he said when asked about the pattern and the possibility of someone just being hit by one pellet.
No rifle in crowd
He explained that buckshot cartridges have nine pellets and trying to read the pattern of shots from just one or two pellets would not create an accurate measurement of the exact location of the police when they allegedly fired at the protesters.
He said in the case of Allan Lewis, the reason the entry point of the pellet was lower than the exit is because of the possibility that he was leaning forward or running when he was fired at.
“Buckshot pellets can be a little untidy, meaning that they do not form a perfect circle pattern or within a pattern, they are not perfectly equidistant from each other; so it’s always possible that one of the pellets from the nine may always misplaced and then you might fire a second shot and all of the pellets may be grouped together,” he said.
When asked about the possibility of someone shooting from the river, the expert said that there would have been pellets indented on the bridge and persons would be shot in the limbs. However, upon his investigation, no such indentations were discovered.
He also said that it would be virtually impossible for someone from within the crowd to conceal the weapon and discharge at the protesters because of the size of the gun, which ranges from 18 inches to an approximate 3.5 feet and it also cannot be silenced.
The police are accused of shooting to death three persons on July 18 at the Wismar/Mackenzie Bridge, Linden. Ron Somerset, Allan Lewis and Shemroy Bouyea were shot dead while protesting the hike in electricity tariffs in the mining town. The incident triggered a more-than-month-long protest and the burning of several public buildings, including the One Mile Primary School. As a result, it was agreed by government and the opposition parties, AFC and APNU that a commission of inquiry be established to investigate the incident.
The two parties have been campaigning vigorously for the removal of Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, claiming that he was giving instructions to the police at Linden, instead of waiting on findings of the inquiry.
Earlier this week, both parties supported two days of terror under the guise of protest action in Agricola, Greater Georgetown, during which thousands of innocent citizens, including schoolchildren were stranded and some beaten and robbed, while the police attacked despite showing considerable restraint.
The commissioners are former Jamaican Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, Jamaican Senior Counsel Keith D Knight, retired Guyana Appeal Court Justice Claudette Singh, Trinidad Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal, and former Chancellor of the Judiciary, Cecil Kennard. The commission is chaired by Wolfe.
Solomon admits to calling police hooligans
By Vahnu Manikchand
Region 10 Chairman Sharma Solomon on Tuesday admitted calling police hooligans during an address to Lindeners on the Wismar-Mackenzie Bridge on the day three men were shot dead and several others injured during clashes with the police.
Region 10 Chairman Sharma Solomon
Solomon was at the time testifying at the ongoing commission of inquiry into the July 18 incident in Linden. Under cross-examination by Attorney Peter Hugh, Solomon was asked whether he saw the police firing rifles at any of the protesters and he responded in the negative. The attorney then put three suggestions to the witness who denied them, but said that if a video can prove otherwise, then he would accept it; hence, he was shown a video to support the attorney’s suggestions and accepted them. The first suggestion was that he called the police “hooligans” while addressing the crowd on the bridge. The second point was that he told the gathering that since they were tired and are resting, he will also rest with them, and the last point was him advising the people gathered there to encourage others via phone calls, text messages, and BlackBerry Messenger to come out at the bridge.
Meanwhile, during his testimony, Solomon disclosed that a five-day protest was planned and he wrote a letter to the Divisional Commander Clifton Hicken seeking permission. He said he had met with Hicken and two other officers, and they discussed the terms and conditions of the permission. He stated that it was pointed out that there was an error for July 17; hence, the permission was only for four days of protest.
Solomon said that on July 18 about 10:00h, he stopped at the Kara Kara Call Centre where the march was supposed to end and a meeting was to be held, and observed that preparations were being made for the meeting. Then he arrived at the Wismar-Mackenzie Bridge at approximately 17:00h and saw a few thousand persons gathered at the bridge. He noted that he briefly spoke to Member of Parliament, Vanessa Kissoon, after which he walked to the centre of the bridge where he was given a microphone to address the crowd for about 20 to 25 minutes. After addressing the gathering, the regional chairman said that he went to the Wismar side of the bridge, because he was told that people on the western side could not have heard him so he went there to speak to them. He added that after he was finished speaking, he was informed that the police were firing teargas on the eastern side of the bridge, so he went there to enquire from the police their reasons for doing so. However, he was unable to do so because on his way to the police he was told a young man was “shot and killed” and other persons began approaching him with injuries. Solomon said he then assisted the injured persons to the hospital after advising the people on the bridge to retreat to the western side of the bridge.
Solomon noted that around 18:00h while he was at his office, he received a letter from Senior Police Superintendent Hicken, which stated that the rules of the permission was violated; hence, further permission requested would have to be re-evaluated.
A commissioner, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal put a series of questions to Solomon about the terms and conditions of the permission. She pointed out that the permission was requested and granted in accordance to the law. She then asked the regional chairman that if permission was granted for a march at 09:00h to 13:00h when a meeting was to be held, what was he doing having a meeting on the middle of the bridge at 17:00h, to which he replied the protesters were not moving to the call centre, so he had to update them about the meeting that was planned for the call centre.
Illegal moves
Then Jamaican Senior Counsel Keith Knight informed the regional chairman of the terms of reference under which the commission will have to determine the “nature of the violence and instructions and its perpetrators that immediately followed the July 18 shooting”, before posing questions about the events of that day. To questions posed by the commission, Solomon said he was unaware of any vehicles being damaged, but was aware that the Linmine Secretariat building was on fire around 19:00h since he saw the fire from the hospital; however, he does not know whether the fire was started by protesters. The regional chairman said from inquiries he made, people were not at the Linmine building, because gunshots were being fired at that location. The chairman went on to say that as far as he was aware, the protesters did not behave violently nor were they hurling any bricks and bottles.
Another commissioner of inquiry, former chancellor of the Judiciary, Cecil Kennard, then asked Solomon why he did not ask the protesters to remove from the bridge during his 20-minute speech and he responded that similar actions were taken by the people; however, they dispersed in the past and was mostly outlining what would be done at the call centre. However, Commissioner Seetahal then suggested whether the reason for him not asking the protesters to move is because he did not want them to move, but Solomon denied the suggestion.
Meanwhile, Attorney Latchmie Rahamat asked the regional chairman if he had told the crowd at the bridge that they were doing an illegal act and he said no. She then asked if he had seen any trucks transporting lumber in proximity of the bridge or saw any boulders or stones blocking the bridge, and again he replied in the negative. Solomon then revealed in answering a question that he did not receive any complaints after July 18 about logs being destroyed on that day. He further said that he was not aware that trucks transporting timbers were vandalised and the materials on the trucks were used to block the bridge; however, he noted that he saw reports in the newspapers that a vehicle was burnt.
Chairman of the Region 10 Regional Democratic Council Sharma Solomon was yesterday pressured to give a significant reason why he had not encouraged protestors to remove from the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge on July 18, before three men were killed and other persons wounded.
“In your 20 minutes speech to the crowd, did you inform them, having regard to the terms of permission, that they ought to get off the bridge?” Commissioner Cecil Kennard asked Solomon when he took to the stand yesterday morning before the Commission of Inquiry into the shootings continued.
“No, I did not,” he said before Kennard asked why. With a long pause, Kennard again prompted him, “Why not? Why not? You spoke for 20 minutes, why didn’t you tell them toget off the bridge?” Responding to this, Solomon said he made no such request, since there has been similar action in Linden before and persons would usually remove.
Region 10 Chairman Sharma Solomon taking the oath to tell the truth before testifying yesterday
“I’m asking you in that 20 minutes you spoke why didn’t you tell them to get off the bridge?” Kennard again asked.
“I did not,” Solomon reiterated. “Why not?” Kennard asked again, this time more hastily but received the same answer. “Why? You have a reason?” he inquired. Solomon this time said that he was outlining for the people the activities they had planned for the Toucan Call Centre.
Kennard then asked Solomon what he was telling the crowd over the microphone for 20 minutes. “I was telling them that we have our agenda which was the programme at the Toucan Call Centre and to outline to them the speakers and to also establish what our reasons for demonstrating were as we continued to reiterate at every meeting; increasing electricity hike,” he said
“Would the reason for not telling them to remove be because you did not want them to get off the bridge? That’s why you didn’t tell them to move?” Commission-er Dana Seetahal then asked the witness. “No, that is not the reason,” he responded.
However, Solomon agreed with Seetahal’s later suggestion that he wanted to have supporters in large numbers to hear his message. “So, the longer you waited to address them to go to the call centre, you would have had more people. Isn’t that so? And you were interested in getting more people to hear your message. Isn’t that so? And after you got them to hear your message, you wanted them to go to the call centre. Wasn’t that your intention?” she asked with Solomon responding “Yes ma’am” at every instance. “But it did not happen,” Seetahal concluded.
Unable to recall
Commissioner KD Knight asked Solomon if he had believed the protestors behaved violently but he said he was not aware of any violent behaviour. “Any throwing of bricks, stones, bottles or other missiles? No one in the crowd you know did any such act?” Knight asked. “I was unable to see what was taking place so I am not aware based on my recollection of what I could’ve seen,” Solomon answered.
When asked if he was subsequently made aware, Solomon said he was told that no one threw missiles at the lawmen. “I was told that persons were not throwing anything at the police and this was from Miss Vanessa Kissoon, when I saw her at the hospital on the said night,” he said.
Solomon said that after concluding further discussions on the western end, he began advancing towards the police on the eastern side when he heard that teargas was being fired. “I advanced toward the police end to find out why and what was the reason for this… I was unable to do so because I was told while advancing toward the police that a young man was shot and killed and I saw persons coming towards me with injuries,” he said. Solomon had told the Commission that his first visit to the bridge was at approximately 5pm that day.
Audio
COI Hearing 16/10/12 – Sharma Solomon
He noted that he assisted a few of the injured persons back to the western end and advised others who had already retreated to move back to the western end. “I advised them that we have a planned programme at the Toucan Call Centre. I can’t recall if I requested that they move,” he reiterated.
“You can’t recall?” Knight asked. “I can’t recall, in specific words to say ‘disperse from the bridge.’ I can’t recall saying that,” Solomon noted. However, when asked whether anything he said could be interpreted as a request to leave the bridge, Solomon responded in the affirmative.
“In terms of clearing the blockage caused by them, did you at all ask them, encourage them, advise them to leave?” Knight again posed. “I can’t recall,” he was told once again.
Counsel for the Commission Euclin Gomes asked about a letter Solomon had received around 6pm on the day in question from Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken. “It said that we have violated the rules of the permission and the force may have to re-evaluate further permission that [is] being requested,” Solomon relayed. When asked what he did about the situation after being so informed, Solomon said that the injured persons were his priority at that time.
Under further questioning by Seetahal, Solomon said he was aware of buildings being burnt on July 18 but had no idea of how it occurred. He said that sometime between 7 and 7:30pm, he saw the Linmine Secretariat on fire while he was at the Mackenzie Hospital complex.
“Could that have been caused by the protestors?” Solomon was asked and he again said he was clueless. After inquiries, Solomon said he was made to understand that people were not at the building at the time of the fire. “Because the gunshots would’ve removed them from the building… This is as much information as I got,” he added. He noted that he received no reports as to how the fires may have started.
