By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on March 17, 2015
On March 27, 2015, the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry heard from two witnesses, Anne Wagner the sister of Gregory Smith and co-author of "Assassination Cry of a Failed Revolution" and from Guyana Police Force Sergeant Alexis Adams.
In terms of Wagner's evidence several interesting facts emerged, who would have offered William Smith a new identity including birth certificate and passport? Why would he have returned in 1980 and 1982? Who was responsible for issuing the two passports Ms. Wagner produced that showed extensive travel including two trips into Guyana between 1980 and 1982 under the name Cyril Johnson? What was William Smith's emotional health like as he battled cancer? Did William Smith told Wagner everything? Was the omissions in the book sloppy work or intent to deceive? The salient themes of the cross-examination will be extracted below:
Re-availment in July 1980 and looking for Donald Rodney
Mr. Pieters: My understanding is that in July 1980 when he returned to Guyana, he was looking to have a conversation or a confrontation of sorts with Donald Rodney?
Mrs. Wagner: I did not get that question. Repeat that for me.
Mr. Pieters: When your brother returned to Guyana in July 1980, he was looking for Donald Rodney because he wanted to have a conversation with Donald Rodney?
Mrs. Wagner: Right.
Mr. Pieters: That is in your book?
Mrs. Wagner: Right.
Mr. Pieters: Do you recall…
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: The conversation you had?
Mrs. Wagner: With Donald Rodney, he did not meet with him.
Mr. Pieters: Right but he was looking for Donald Rodney. He went to a location where he taught he would find Donald Rodney. Do you recall that in your book?
Ms. Wagner: Yes, I recall that.
Mr. Pieters: Why would he do that?
10:51hrs
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Did he tell her?
Mrs. Wagner: He wants to get to some answers. He wanted him to tell the truth. I guess if he had spoken to him then we would not have this Inquiry now.
---------
Mr. Hanoman: Mistress. Good afternoon again. You have shared with us a passport issued to Cyril Johnson in 1980. You are aware of that document?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: The original passport, do you have it?
12:54hrs
Mrs. Wagner: No, I do not have it.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know where it is?
Mrs. Wagner: It is in Cayenne. That is the copy of the passport.
Mr. Hanoman: The passport itself is in Cayenne at this moment?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Now, in your book you suggest to us that when Gregory Smith came back from Trinidad, that that very night, a passport was handed to him by a Mr. Fowler?
Mr. Chairman: You talking about his that the first visit or the second?
Mr. Hanoman: When he came back from Trinidad.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mrs. Wagner: No, it was not the very night. Mr. Fowler had him at different hotels sleeping and walking and it was not the same night.
Mr. Hanoman: I wish to avert your attention to Page 42 of your book which is purportedly written by Gregory Smith. Do you have it?
Mr. Chairman: What is at Page 42 for the benefit of those who are following from a far? It makes it very hard when you do not say explicitly what you are talking about.
Mr. Hanoman: At Page 42 of your book, purportedly written by Gregory Smith it is stated that “he arrived in Georgetown between the hours of 07:00hrs and 08:00hrs and he immediately when to a house in Albertown. He approaches the gate of the house and saw the companion of the chauffeur who had taken me to the ship”. And then he goes on to say that he had left …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The second paragraph on Page [Inaudible]
Mr. Hanoman: … and then the second paragraph on Page 43, it goes to say that “after I had walked for about ten minutes when a car stopped. I approached the car, the door opened, the driver told me to get into the car” and then further to the bottom of the page “he then handed me a large brown envelope, the contents of which I examined. The envelope contained a passport in the name of Cyril Johnson”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, what you left out in the third paragraph is that when he got in the car, he asked the man his name and the man said his name is Fowler. He said he was some kind of coordinator, his address not important and he said Mr. Fowler said in the fourth paragraph “I should not let my anger guide me”. Then he speaks to a conversation with Mr. Fowler and it is after that conversation that he says “he then handed me”, just so let everybody follows.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, do you follow that Mrs. Wagner?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree that it was the very night when he arrived in Georgetown between the hours of 07:00 and 08:00 when he was taken into the car with Mr. Fowler that this brown envelope was handed to him with the passport in the name of Cyril Johnson?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree that what Gregory Smith is saying here that the very night he returned to Georgetown he went to a house in Albertown, he spoke to this mysterious Mr. Fowler and then Mr. Fowler handed him an envelope with the passport. You agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what this book is saying, yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes. Did Gregory Smith tell you where Mr. Fowler would have gotten his photograph from?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mr. Hanoman: Did Gregory Smith ever tell you that he gave anybody a photograph of himself that could be used for a passport?
Mrs. Wagner: The guy took a picture of Gregory. A picture was taken of Gregory.
Mr. Hanoman: When was this picture taken?
Mrs. Wagner: This picture was taken … somebody took a picture of him. A picture was taken of him.
Mr. Hanoman: When, at what stage?
Mrs. Wagner: Around that same time.
Mr. Hanoman: From the time he left the ship to go to Mr. Fowler, the photograph was taken.
Mrs. Wagner: No, like probably the next day or something like that.
Mr. Hanoman: No …
Mr. Chairman: The question asked of you though, is that …
Mrs. Wagner: A picture was taken of him; a guy took the picture of him.
Mr. Hanoman: You have that included in your book or that is from your memory?
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot … it is in my head that is what I am recalling, yes.
Mr. Chairman: Now the question put to you is whether Gregory Smith, your brother, ever told you where the photograph and the new passport that he was given came from?
Mrs. Wagner: It came from Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Chairman: No, first of all, did he tell you?
Mrs. Wagner: He said he got it from Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, but he did not tell you where Mr. Fowler got it from? He did not know …
Mrs. Wagner: He did not know where he got it from.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Wagner: It was given to him.
Mr. Hanoman: You and Gregory Smith had a conversation about this photograph or did he tell you?
Mrs. Wagner: No, he told me they took his picture.
Mr. Hanoman: He told you that they took his picture?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you have an idea when this picture was taken?
Mrs. Wagner: It is in the book.
Mr. Hanoman: Let me suggest to you that there is nothing like that in the book. That immediately as Gregory Smith came from Trinidad Mr. Fowler had a passport with his photograph in it already.
William Gregory Smith's Own Words the conditions under which he would speak to the authorities in respect to Dr. Walter Rodney's Killing Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: The original passport, do you have it?
12:54hrs
Mrs. Wagner: No, I do not have it.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know where it is?
Mrs. Wagner: It is in Cayenne. That is the copy of the passport.
Mr. Hanoman: The passport itself is in Cayenne at this moment?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Now, in your book you suggest to us that when Gregory Smith came back from Trinidad, that that very night, a passport was handed to him by a Mr. Fowler?
Mr. Chairman: You talking about his that the first visit or the second?
Mr. Hanoman: When he came back from Trinidad.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mrs. Wagner: No, it was not the very night. Mr. Fowler had him at different hotels sleeping and walking and it was not the same night.
Mr. Hanoman: I wish to avert your attention to Page 42 of your book which is purportedly written by Gregory Smith. Do you have it?
Mr. Chairman: What is at Page 42 for the benefit of those who are following from a far? It makes it very hard when you do not say explicitly what you are talking about.
Mr. Hanoman: At Page 42 of your book, purportedly written by Gregory Smith it is stated that “he arrived in Georgetown between the hours of 07:00hrs and 08:00hrs and he immediately when to a house in Albertown. He approaches the gate of the house and saw the companion of the chauffeur who had taken me to the ship”. And then he goes on to say that he had left …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The second paragraph on Page [Inaudible]
Mr. Hanoman: … and then the second paragraph on Page 43, it goes to say that “after I had walked for about ten minutes when a car stopped. I approached the car, the door opened, the driver told me to get into the car” and then further to the bottom of the page “he then handed me a large brown envelope, the contents of which I examined. The envelope contained a passport in the name of Cyril Johnson”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, what you left out in the third paragraph is that when he got in the car, he asked the man his name and the man said his name is Fowler. He said he was some kind of coordinator, his address not important and he said Mr. Fowler said in the fourth paragraph “I should not let my anger guide me”. Then he speaks to a conversation with Mr. Fowler and it is after that conversation that he says “he then handed me”, just so let everybody follows.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, do you follow that Mrs. Wagner?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree that it was the very night when he arrived in Georgetown between the hours of 07:00 and 08:00 when he was taken into the car with Mr. Fowler that this brown envelope was handed to him with the passport in the name of Cyril Johnson?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree that what Gregory Smith is saying here that the very night he returned to Georgetown he went to a house in Albertown, he spoke to this mysterious Mr. Fowler and then Mr. Fowler handed him an envelope with the passport. You agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what this book is saying, yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes. Did Gregory Smith tell you where Mr. Fowler would have gotten his photograph from?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mr. Hanoman: Did Gregory Smith ever tell you that he gave anybody a photograph of himself that could be used for a passport?
Mrs. Wagner: The guy took a picture of Gregory. A picture was taken of Gregory.
Mr. Hanoman: When was this picture taken?
Mrs. Wagner: This picture was taken … somebody took a picture of him. A picture was taken of him.
Mr. Hanoman: When, at what stage?
Mrs. Wagner: Around that same time.
Mr. Hanoman: From the time he left the ship to go to Mr. Fowler, the photograph was taken.
Mrs. Wagner: No, like probably the next day or something like that.
Mr. Hanoman: No …
Mr. Chairman: The question asked of you though, is that …
Mrs. Wagner: A picture was taken of him; a guy took the picture of him.
Mr. Hanoman: You have that included in your book or that is from your memory?
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot … it is in my head that is what I am recalling, yes.
Mr. Chairman: Now the question put to you is whether Gregory Smith, your brother, ever told you where the photograph and the new passport that he was given came from?
Mrs. Wagner: It came from Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Chairman: No, first of all, did he tell you?
Mrs. Wagner: He said he got it from Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, but he did not tell you where Mr. Fowler got it from? He did not know …
Mrs. Wagner: He did not know where he got it from.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Wagner: It was given to him.
Mr. Hanoman: You and Gregory Smith had a conversation about this photograph or did he tell you?
Mrs. Wagner: No, he told me they took his picture.
Mr. Hanoman: He told you that they took his picture?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you have an idea when this picture was taken?
Mrs. Wagner: It is in the book.
Mr. Hanoman: Let me suggest to you that there is nothing like that in the book. That immediately as Gregory Smith came from Trinidad Mr. Fowler had a passport with his photograph in it already.
Mr. Pieters: Yes, [para.]46 [of your witness statement], you said that at some later point, your brother was aware of attempts to extradite him and he was always willing to return to Guyana to testify at trial under the condition that both he and Donald Rodney be subject to lie detector tests. “Additionally, Gregory was never reluctant to return to Guyana to face an investigation. He said so many times and reiterated that in his interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation.” Do you see that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: My question to you is why within the two times that he was in Guyana, when he came here and knew that he was a person of interest, he did not avail himself to the authorities for that purpose, the investigative purpose? Did he explain that to you?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mr. Pieters: When he gave the interview on the BBC, which I listened to last night, he spoke of much more than the lie detector test. He spoke of security, he spoke about the lie detector test, he spoke of an impartial tribunal – I am getting old and blind – he spoke about amnesty for the four persons or the persons in high authority who he was going to expose; do you recall that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, I recall that.
Mr. Pieters: Right. So, it was much more than a lie detector test?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: You would agree with me… Let me ask you this; you would accept that the issue of state protection or security, if someone had that concern it is nullified if the person re-availed themselves of a country for which they are claiming they will be persecuted, tortured or any crimes against humanity that exists? You would agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And your brother re-availed himself twice without any security incident, as far as you know? Your brother was not tortured when he came back here in 1980? Your brother was not tortured or otherwise subjected to any sort of cruel and unusual treatment or any form of persecution, would you agree?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And you would agree that the same applies when he came back here in 1982?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
----------
Mr. Williams: Did you all ever discuss the question of him being extradited to Guyana?
Mrs. Wagner: I think that came up but the French Government had some stipulations and the Government never followed through with it.
Mr. Williams: Okay and that stipulation was, they would not send him back if there is a chance that he could be tried… whatever charge he is tried with eventuates in a sentence of death?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Now, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interview… Did he, in that interview, express his desire to return and face trial in Guyana?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: What year do you recall that BBC interview was?
Mrs. Wagner: I think it was 1996, I am not sure.
Mr. Williams: 1996?
Mrs. Wagner: 1996, I think so.
Mr. Williams: And in fact, we were shown a warrant for 1996 purporting to be a warrant for his arrest. Remember you were shown a warrant?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: So it meant before that, you would agree with me, he was never charged for anything in relation to the death of Dr. Rodney …
Mrs. Wagner: No, not until that time.
Mr. Williams: … before 1996?
Mrs. Wagner: That is right, Sir.
Mr. Williams: So before 1996 there was no question of him having to return to Guyana to face his Trial? You agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, I agree with that.
Mr. Williams: And upon the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in 1996 he right away indicated to the BBC that he was prepared to return to face any trial?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Now, you were also questioned at length about various omissions in the book. Do you recall that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I do not know if you recall at one point the Chairman said that the omissions in the book may play some part in assessing the credibility of the book. Do you recall that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Let me finish the entire question before you answer. Would you characterise the omissions in the book as sloppiness or carelessness on your part?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Did you have any intent to deceive the public or the readership of your book?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr. Pieters, your questions are very long even though her answers are short. So you have to give us a chance to write everything.
Mr. Pieters: Yes, Madame Commissioner.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So she would credit it as sloppiness or carelessness on her part but it was not deliberate.
Mr. Pieters: No, the next question was: you had no intent to deceive the readership.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: And her answer was “no”? She had no intent?
Mr. Pieters: Correct.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
---------
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you Counsel. I will try to be more benign in my language. At page 138 about four or five paragraphs from the bottom, it begins “Smith confirmed that he travelled to Kwakwani to seek his father’s help.”
Mrs. Wagner: That is wrong.
Mr. Pilgrim: Right. That is not true you are saying?
Mrs. Wagner: That is not true.
Mr. Pilgrim: Did you or Gregory Smith ever contact Stabroek News to suggest that this was false?
Mrs. Wagner: I said yesterday, no.
Mr. Chairman: Again you are going back over very carefully traversed areas.
Mr. Pilgrim: I just want to get to the third question Mr. Chairman, which is this. Who are you saying is responsible for this distortion, just the Press at large or the WPA or anyone in particular?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know. I cannot answer that, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: The article says it is a Stabroek News article.
Mr. Pilgrim: Indeed Mr. Chairman but…
Mr. Chairman: Reflecting the rap so to carry her to news at large and so on. It has a particular focus.
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes Mr. Chairman but she said yesterday…
Mr. Chairman: We are talking about the rap session with Gregory Smith.
Mr. Pilgrim: The Witness said yesterday that she put these articles in here to show that the press was distorting the facts and that there were various inconsistencies.
Mrs. Wagner: Inconsistencies.
Mr. Pilgrim: So I am just asking, are you saying that the press in general was distorting the facts for any particular reason or on the behalf of any particular person?
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot say that. I do not know that. All I know is that this particular article is inconsistent with what really happened. I cannot say if it was an error on the write or who.
Mr. Pilgrim: Especially since you made no effort whatsoever to correct it or question it.
Mrs. Wagner: This is not the only article. There are tons of them.
Mr. Pilgrim: I am only asking about one at this stage.
Mr. Chairman: The answer to that is on the record Sir. Grateful, Mr. Chairman.
On William Gregory Smith's Emotional HealthMrs. Wagner: That is wrong.
Mr. Pilgrim: Right. That is not true you are saying?
Mrs. Wagner: That is not true.
Mr. Pilgrim: Did you or Gregory Smith ever contact Stabroek News to suggest that this was false?
Mrs. Wagner: I said yesterday, no.
Mr. Chairman: Again you are going back over very carefully traversed areas.
Mr. Pilgrim: I just want to get to the third question Mr. Chairman, which is this. Who are you saying is responsible for this distortion, just the Press at large or the WPA or anyone in particular?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know. I cannot answer that, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: The article says it is a Stabroek News article.
Mr. Pilgrim: Indeed Mr. Chairman but…
Mr. Chairman: Reflecting the rap so to carry her to news at large and so on. It has a particular focus.
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes Mr. Chairman but she said yesterday…
Mr. Chairman: We are talking about the rap session with Gregory Smith.
Mr. Pilgrim: The Witness said yesterday that she put these articles in here to show that the press was distorting the facts and that there were various inconsistencies.
Mrs. Wagner: Inconsistencies.
Mr. Pilgrim: So I am just asking, are you saying that the press in general was distorting the facts for any particular reason or on the behalf of any particular person?
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot say that. I do not know that. All I know is that this particular article is inconsistent with what really happened. I cannot say if it was an error on the write or who.
Mr. Pilgrim: Especially since you made no effort whatsoever to correct it or question it.
Mrs. Wagner: This is not the only article. There are tons of them.
Mr. Pilgrim: I am only asking about one at this stage.
Mr. Chairman: The answer to that is on the record Sir. Grateful, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pieters: The later part of your interviews or conversations with your brother, he would have been ill with cancer?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And we know that he died before your book was published.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: What was his emotional health like while you were interviewing him in the later part of his life?
Mrs. Wagner: It was very difficult to watch him suffer.
Mr. Pieters: And what was his emotional health like, we know that physically…
Mrs. Wagner: Physically, you had to be extra strong to be around him because he did not want to see you cry, you had to appear as if you were happy. This is how he was, but looking at him it was the hardest thing for me.
Mr. Chairman: You are answering about your emotional state, but you are being asked about his.
Mrs. Wagner: His condition was very poor.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: When you say he would not want to see you cry, you had to appear to be happy.
Mrs. Wagner: You had to appear as if everything is alright.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Alright then, what would be his reaction if he saw you cry?
Mrs. Wagner: He would actually said, “Don’t you do that” and that sort of thing.
Mr. Chairman: In saying that his condition was very poor, is that physical and emotional or…
Mrs. Wagner: He was physically, yes, and emotionally he was still like a fighter. You would go to see him and you want to cry because what you are seeing, but you cannot, he would not allow you to do that.
Mr. Williams: [Inaudible]
Mrs. Wagner: Yes!
Mr. Chairman: But that is not the only thing on record that his emotional health was poor as well as his physical condition in the later part of his life, but she said he was still a fighter also.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, Madam.
Mr. Chairman: What is your record please?
Ms. Rahamat: She indicated that the emotional condition of her brother was very poor.
Mr. Chairman: Those are my words too, but we will abide by the transcript.
Mr. Williams: [Inaudible]
Mr. Chairman: Yes, his condition was very poor and that is why…
Mrs. Wagner: This is what I meant his condition was very poor if you look at him, you will see the frailty in him and his health conditions. He was still portraying that strength to us as if he was doing good.
Mr. Chairman: Still trying to play a soldier.
Mr. Pieters: Strong.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mr. Pieters: He had four young children; my understanding is at that material time.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am sorry, Mr. Pieters, because you put a general question to her in the latter part when you visited him and you have not defined what you meant by “latter part”. I am looking at her statement at paragraph 48 and I am wondering if that later part relates to the July visit for a month, or if she is going back to September, 1999, so perhaps you can clarify for us what you meant by the “latter part” when you ask her that question.
Mr. Pieters: Madame Commissioner, when I say the latter part, I am asking her about the time when she spent a month with him.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: [Inaudible]
Mr. Pieters: I was not clear as I should have been, Madam.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I do not think you have given us a direct answer with respect to his emotional health which is the question for which I seek an answer. Can you tell us what his emotional health was like during the month in which you spent with him, can you tell us whether he appeared vulnerable, whether psychologically, he was strong, whether he was lucid, whatever you can tell us about his emotional health?
10:36hrs
Mrs. Wagner: His emotional health was very strong. I was not the strong one.
Mr. Pieters: So you saw no signs of vulnerability emotionally?
Mrs. Wagner: No. He kept telling me exactly what I have been saying here a couple minutes ago.
Mr. Pieters: And all…
Mrs. Wagner: And he started talking from day one all the way on.
Mr. Pieters: And all his faculties were intact?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes. At the end of every day we would pray. His youngest daughter would start the prayers and he would finish it.
Mr. Pieters: I asked you that question because when Mr. Pilgrim questioned you and Mr. Ram questioned you, they questioned you about certain omissions and why you did not ask certain questions, and so, I was attempting to ascertain whether it was because of his emotional health or you did not pursue a certain line of inquiry with him.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But she has given her answer. She said he was strong. She said she was the weak one.
Mr. Pieters: No, I appreciate that now. I did not get what his emotional health was prior to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So she has answered.
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But she says she was traumatised.
Mrs. Wagner: I was the weak one.
Mr. Pieters: So is it…
Mrs. Wagner: There are certain questions that I should have asked. I could not ask because I was not capable of doing it.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I understand.
Mr. Hanoman: Did you ever consider that perhaps your brother was telling you his story in order to gain sympathy from you and financial assistance?
Mrs. Wagner: No, Sir. That is not my brother.
Mr. Hanoman: Now, according you your book, you agree with me that the picture that Gregory Smith painted of himself is that from the beginning of his adult life, he was a victim. He was a victim of Mr. Bonny Elphage, He was a victim of the PNC, he was a victim of the Army, he was a perpetual victim. Do you agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, it is what it is and we have called it as we see it. If you are going through it, you have to say what you are going through.
Mr. Hanoman: So for most of his adult life he has been victimized. Do you agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: He had a victim complex? You can get that far.
Mrs. Wagner: I guess because he was easy going and he has too much… when you are dishonest, you can get through this world very easy. When you do honest, you have a problem.
Mr. Chairman: Ma’am, you thought he had a victim complex?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree in your conversation with him especially after June, 1980 that he was constantly on his guard because of everything that was happening?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Did he ever confide in you that he had difficulty sleeping?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, he had difficulty sleeping.
Mr. Hanoman: Ma’am, do you know that all of those questions that I just I just asked are the classic symptoms of schizophrenic paranoia, a clinical sickness?
Mrs. Wagner: No, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: Did it ever cross your mind?
Mr. Pieters: Stop, again there is no factual foundation, no basis for that line of questioning or suggestion of the symptoms of mental illness on the part of Gregory Smith, none whatsoever.
Mr. Hanoman: Ma’am, do you agree that your brother was paranoid?
Mrs. Wagner: No, he was not.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know if he ever went to Psychiatrist?
Mrs. Wagner: He did not have any reason to.
Mr. Hanoman: Was he traumatised by the death of Walter Rodney in any way as far as you can tell?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, he was upset by it.
Mr. Hanoman: Did he express to you any remorse about the part he played in Walter Rodney’s death?
Mrs. Wagner: I would say, yes.
******
The Laurie Lewis Factor
In terms of the evidence from Guyana Police Force Sergeant Alexis Adams several observations are appropriate. Firstly, counsel for the parties present at the Inquiry were given no notice up to the time the Immigration Officer was called that such a witness exist. Secondly, the documents were sprung on us at the very last moment. Third, the witness Sergeant Sealey exists and still serves in the Guyana Police Force, she should have been brought to be cross-examined about the application. Fourth, even if a command is given by a superior officer, if it illegal a rank does not have to comply (remember the Paul Slowe/Gajraj issue with returning a firearm); Fifth, even if a direction is given to a rank to process an application, it is the ranks duty to ensure all the necessary requirements are complied with.
 |
| P.M. Hinds; Pres. Jagan and Commissioner L. Lewis |
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know that this passport was issued on the direction of Laurie Lewis even though none of the usual formalities were followed?
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I step in at this point because that is a problem. None of the other Counsels had this prior to the Commission’s Counsel’s examination. I do not know why the Commission’s Secretariat would not have distributed this document earlier and now we are hearing Laurie Lewis’s name come into the picture and there is no evidence of the source of this knowledge but we just got a document handed to us after our cross-examination has been completed.
13.09hrs
Mr. Chairman: I do not know if it is any consolation to you but I do not …
Mr. Meertins-George: Mr. Commissioner, did Laurie Lewis give evidence to this Commission?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I think he is to come back.
Mr. Hanoman: Laurie Lewis died, I believe in 2002.
Mr. Meertins-George: He is dead. [Laughter]
Mr. Chairman: Who is to come back? He is dead.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It is James that we are thinking about, Mr. James.
Mr. Chairman: No man, a senior officer was to come back.
Mr. Jairam: Mr. James.
Mr. Chairman: No man, not Leslie James, a senior officer at the time, McLean? Whose name you say is that? Whose name?
Mr. Hanoman: Laurie Lewis.
Mr. Chairman: Where is that contained?
Mr. Hanoman: I will give an undertaking that the next witness to be called after this one will supply that information. We have an application form that led up to this passport that we are presently circulating among the participants to establish how that passport came about.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my Friend’s cross examination, I really do not want to do that but now we have an application. Is there any other document that is going to be served on us in the course of this Witness’s cross-examination that was not previously disclosed to her Counsel or any other Counsel before the Commission?
Mr. Chairman: Well, I was not aware of this either.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that, that is why I raised the point because it is a matter of fairness.
Mr. Chairman: You sure contributed it to it, Counsel, you really should not have.
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I do agree but it is my Friend, Mr. Meertins-George that brought this passport to us.
Mr. Chairman: But do not mind, from the time you got it, whatever you are going to …
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I would have imagined my Friend would have distributed it to everybody.
Mr. Chairman: No, no.
Mr. Meertins-George: That is not my responsibility. That is not my role.
Mr. Chairman: The Commission does that. Do not let us quarrel about it. Are there any other documents that you want to disclose?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, we did get some statements from an immigration officer yesterday that we are about to circulate as well as two application forms for Guyana passports. All of this information we received within the last two days.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: What you are putting to her is that this 1999 passport, the second passport …
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: … that was issued to her brother, that the application form was prepared by Laurie Lewis.
Mr. Hanoman: That the passport was issued under the authority of Mr. Laurie Lewis
Mr. Chairman: Where is that demonstrated?
Mr. Hanoman: There is information on the application form that is not yet in evidence.
Mr. Chairman: I was hoping that we could finish here before we … but that is not in evidence and you are putting it to her? I do not know whether you are putting fiction or fact. I suggest that you put …
Mr. Hanoman: Well if it pleases you, I have an Immigration Officer here that I could seek to interpose to try and lead all of this evidence.
Mr. Chairman: Is it in any of the documents?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: That you just handed out?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: You could point us to it.
Mr. Hanoman: There is an application form that has no signature on it of the applicant, that has no guarantor on it that states on its face from COP, which I am instructed stands for Commissioner of Police and I am further instructed that in 1999 the Commissioner of Police was none other than Mr. Laurie Lewis.
Mr. Chairman: The application form in relation to the second passport dated 21st May, 1999 has a notation on page 3, that the …
Mr. Hanoman: That the application was transmitted directly from COP which I am informed stands for the “Commissioner of Police” and the Head of the Immigration.
Mr. Chairman: Documents produced from COP, part of it is in …
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, please.
Mr. Chairman: … in hand and the other are documents produced relating to a stamp.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, please.
Mr. Chairman: From COP in handwriting but where is Laurie Lewis, Commissioner of Police? Are you saying that the evidence was that he was the Commissioner of Police?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, I intend to introduce that evidence through the immigration officer who located these application forms.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, can I …
Mr. Chairman: You go ahead.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a preliminary question? What use Commission Counsel intends to make of these documents with this Witness?
Mr. Hanoman: Well, the very application form has a photograph of an older Gregory Smith that I would like for the Witness to look at. I have the original, I am not sure …
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know that this passport was issued on the direction of Laurie Lewis even though none of the usual formalities were followed?
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I step in at this point because that is a problem. None of the other Counsels had this prior to the Commission’s Counsel’s examination. I do not know why the Commission’s Secretariat would not have distributed this document earlier and now we are hearing Laurie Lewis’s name come into the picture and there is no evidence of the source of this knowledge but we just got a document handed to us after our cross-examination has been completed.
13.09hrs
Mr. Chairman: I do not know if it is any consolation to you but I do not …
 |
| President D. Ramoutar and retd Commissioner L. Lewis |
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my Friend’s cross examination, I really do not want to do that but now we have an application. Is there any other document that is going to be served on us in the course of this Witness’s cross-examination that was not previously disclosed to her Counsel or any other Counsel before the Commission?
Mr. Chairman: Well, I was not aware of this either.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that, that is why I raised the point because it is a matter of fairness.
Mr. Chairman: You sure contributed it to it, Counsel, you really should not have.
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I do agree but it is my Friend, Mr. Meertins-George that brought this passport to us.
Mr. Chairman: But do not mind, from the time you got it, whatever you are going to …
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I would have imagined my Friend would have distributed it to everybody.
Mr. Chairman: No, no.
Mr. Meertins-George: That is not my responsibility. That is not my role.
Mr. Chairman: The Commission does that. Do not let us quarrel about it. Are there any other documents that you want to disclose?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, we did get some statements from an immigration officer yesterday that we are about to circulate as well as two application forms for Guyana passports. All of this information we received within the last two days.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
.....
Mr. Pieters: Yes Mr. Chairman. Good Afternoon, Madam.
Sergeant Adams: Good Afternoon, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: My name is Selwyn Pieters and I represent the Guyana Trades Union Congress. Let us take a look at ARW 3, that is the Cyril Johnson application for passport in 1999, I believe. Do you have that document in front of you?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Okay, let us take a look at page three of that document and where you see from COP are you looking at that?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: There is some writing at the bottom seem like a signature date and some other writing. What is that say?
Sergeant Adams: M. Sealy, she received it on the 21st May, 1999. She was then a Corporal of Police Regulation number 16385.
Mr. Pieters: Right, Officer Sealy was at the rank of Corporal?
Sergeant Adams: Very well, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And she was a very junior officer, she would have been two promotions away from Constable?
Sergeant Adams: Very well, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And a significant of promotions away from Commissioner?
Sergeant Adams: Exactly, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well, and do you know whether 16385 Sealy is still a member of the Guyana Police Force?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir, she is a Sergeant of Police; she has been promoted.
Mr. Pieters: She is a Sergeant now, very well, and where does she work?
Sergeant Adams: She is stationed at the Timehri International Airport, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: So she is still an Immigration Officer or an Immigration Supervisor, I should say?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir, you are correct both ways.
Mr. Pieters: Pardon?
Sergeant Adams: You are correct both ways.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you.
Sergeant Adams: You are welcome.
Mr. Pieters: Now, when you did your investigation in respect to this application, did you speak to sergeant Sealy?
Mr. Pieters: No, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Why did you not speak to sergeant Sealy?
Sergeant Adams: Because my boss told me to come here so it is his duty to may be call her.
Mr. Pieters: No, you were coming here today to give evidence or I should say a few days ago because I think I saw you here yesterday and the day before.
Sergeant Adams: Yesterday and today only.
Mr. Pieters: Very well, did you not thought it best to call Sergeant Sealy to find out whether she obtained instruction directly from the COP, or whether through the chain of command someone told her that the COP or the Commission of Police instructed that this application be processed and expedited?
Mr. Chairman: Was that part of your remit though? Investigate that? She was asked to come here and bring those forms, but I do not if know she was given any specific remit in relation to that. Just asked to search for records and if you find them, you could come. She was not asked to investigate that.
Mr. Pieters: Well I cannot get the evidence from the Commission. Let me get it from you. You were not asked to determine how the order would have come down to Corporal Sealy in respect to this application?
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr. Pieters, the Officer’s statement is in evidence and she also told us what her remit was orally from the witness box; it is not coming from the Commission. She said that was instructed by the Deputy Chief Immigration Officer to carry out checks for applications forms for Mr. Williams Smith and she gave us her date of birth and Mr. Cyril Melton so she told us the parameters of her remit.
Mr. Pieters: Very well and certain you would agree with me that the best person to give evidence in respect to this specific application is Sergeant Sealy who is currently serving in the Guyana Police Force?
Mr. Chairman: No, that is not a proper question to put to her. She was just asked to search for files and bring them here if she could.
15:14hrs
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I am speaking about the content of the application now. She cannot give…I appreciate what she just said…
Mr. Chairman: If she cannot answer your question, she says so.
Mr. Pieters: She said what?
Mr. Chairman: She is entitled to say, she is not able to answer.
Mr. Pieters: Well you just testified that Sergeant Sealy works at the airport, correct?
Sergeant Adams: Yes I did.
Mr. Pieters: And that she is a supervisor in the Immigration Department?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And Sergeant Sealy’s name and her number is on this application as receiving instruction from the Commissioner of Police?
Sergeant Adams: Whenever a form comes from the Commissioner of Police, it goes directly to the officer and the officer would now instruct a rank to do the application.
Mr. Pieters: Right.
Sergeant Adams: So I guess Sergeant Sealy was instructed by the Officer to accept this application, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: But she would be in the best position to testify as to who the instructions came from in respect to this particular application.
Sergeant Adams: Well I guess you are right in saying that, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: If I may, sorry to interrupt, we will try our best to have this immigration officer present on the next occasion. Obviously time did not allow us.
Mr. Chairman: I do not know what form but I am happy to accept your advice but I do not know what form.
Mr. Pieters: You do not know what form?
Mr. Chairman: I do not know what form.
Mr. Pieters: Very well Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: What is troubling you is not troubling me.
Mr. Pieters: I understand that.
Mr. Chairman: Very well but you are free to question.
Mr. Pieters: We make submissions from this end. We get the evidence and it is your decision at the end of the day.
Mr. Chairman: The actual submissions had not yet come here.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Now, let me ask you this. What is the legislation that governs the issuance of passports in Guyana? Okay, let me frame it differently for you. Under what authority are passports issued in Guyana?
Sergeant Adams: At the authority of the Commissioner of Police.
Mr. Pieters: Do you have a Passport Order? Do you have a Passport directive? Do you have legislation that governs the issuance of passport?
Sergeant Adams: Just the Immigration Act, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. That is the answer I am looking for. Do you have any provisions that control for what would make a person ineligible to receive a passport or a renewal of that passport?
Sergeant Adams: I guess the same Act would help you with that, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Do you know off hand any provisions that would or any bar to the renewal of a passport?
Sergeant Adams: I guess when the person does not submit the correct information.
Mr. Pieters: So that an incomplete application would be a prima facie basis for the rejection of an application?
Sergeant Adams: Yes Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Would an outstanding warrant be basis for the rejection of a passport application?
Sergeant Adams: If the office is aware of it. You have to have reason from stopping him from getting a passport. If he is eligible to getting a passport, he will get it.
Mr. Pieters: Well do you have a system of tracing or whatever you call it here in respect to persons who apply for a passport. Do you check to see whether that person is wanted by the authorities or in any way whether it is by court order or otherwise barred from having a renewed passport?
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: You are talking about what year?
Mr. Pieters: 1999, Madam Commissioner.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Right.
Sergeant Adams: The purpose of the records is to check to see if that person is eligible to get a passport. Let us say someone apply for a passport and they did not declare that they had one before, that is one of the reason we can stop them from getting another passport because they did not declare that they had one before. No one is allowed to have two valid travel documents at the same time.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, it might be a fine point or it might be something that might be quite clear. Now, if the Commissioner of Police gave a direction and a Corporal received that direction, are there transmission memorandums upwards or downwards?
Sergeant Adams: As I said before, Sir, whenever a document comes from the Commissioner, it goes directly to the Officer in Charge. So that officer now gives directive to whomever.
Mr. Pieters: Those directives are oral or in writing?
Sergeant Adams: It is oral.
Mr. Pieters: Would the officer make a notation of the entry on his or her…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am just asking, what was the answer, was it oral or in writing? What was the answer?
Sergeant Adams: I said oral.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you. I did not hear.
Sergeant Adams: It is alright.
Mr. Pieters: Madam Commissioner, I should be looking at your pen. Sorry about that. If an oral direction is given, does the officer make a notation in his or her memorandum book?
Sergeant Adams: I do not think the rank should because the directive would have come from the Officer in Charge. I have never known of any rank making a note unless they are uncomfortable with it, maybe they would make their own personal note.
Mr. Pieters: Now, how would your account for your daily activities or your instructions if you do not diarize oral directions in your memorandum book if you are called for example to testify at a forum such as this?
Sergeant Adams: Well you have books that you would put documents in. You know if you have an application, you would put on today’s date that there is an application. There is a book to indicate that this application would have been tendered on that specific date. So there is a book to indicate that the application was tendered.
Mr. Pieters: From looking at the original applications presented, you have a system of hard copy but you do not have an electronic system for storing applications, is that correct?
Sergeant Adams: Well at that time of the application, there was not a computer system but we have same as we speak.
Mr. Pieters: So the applications are now digitised?
Sergeant Adams: Very well, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: In respect to the application that you said is missing was that the only application that was missing from the series of numbers?
Sergeant Adams: Well I did not find it so I will not be able to answer that.
Mr. Pieters: But did you look to see whether the number previous to that number was on file and the number that followed was on file? Did you look for any anomalies?
Sergeant Adams: What happened was that whenever applications come, there is 1000 in that series. For example, the number 268, there is an entire series. 268 it starts from zero so you would have zero to 99 and the same goes to 268999 so there is always 1000 application forms with a series, the first three numbers I just called.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this question and you may be able to answer it. It is going to be a tough question. Could a corrupt Police Office, let us say a corrupt Police Officer who received a bribe or who received some inducement from a member of the public process and application under the pretext that the Commissioner provided that instruction that the application be issued on an expedited basis?
Mr. Chairman: You are sure that you are not asking her to speculate on improprieties and how an officer who is conducting himself improperly may want to conduct himself. Are you sure…
Sergeant Adams: Can I…
Mr. Chairman: We need to go into that? Are you sure that is relevant to what we are dealing with? Where are we entering now? If somebody gets a bribe what they will do and not do, can you answer anything about that?
Sergeant Adams: I will try to answer him. If someone is corrupt, obviously that person would try to be seclusive in terms of not getting caught.
Mr. Chairman: But is that relevant for us to this business of the Commission before us?
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this and maybe that might alleviate the Commissioner’s question.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, while you are asking, may I look at the original document while…
[Court Marshal passed the original document to Commissioner Mrs. Samuels-Brown]
Mr. Pieters: Assuming that there were influential persons within the WPA that had a link up or a connection to the passport office. Assuming that existed, could they have influenced that Police Officer or more than one police officer to issue a passport to a person such as James Milton for example?
Mr. Chairman: Can she properly speculate on that? I do not know that. We are now into a permissible area of questioning.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. That is the end of my questioning.
Mr. Jairam: One question I have with what arises with what Mr. Pieters was asking you. When the Officer in the Immigration Department received an application form for a passport, in this case, Ms. Sealey, is there a Supervisor who has to when the document is ready to be issued and so on, a Supervisor who would now double check the form and passport to make sure or you are left to your devices?
Sergeant Adams: No, the procedure is that the Supervisor is supposed to check it before left the Officer.
Mr. Jairam: And the Supervisor is a higher Rank?
Sergeant Adams: Yes.
Mr. Jairam: Or always of a higher Rank?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, most times, unless if Ms. Sealey was in charge at that time, meaning that there is no one senior than her because at her level as a Corporal she is also Supervisor.
Mr. Jairam: I see so that, if she were a Supervisor there will be no else to check her work?
Sergeant Adams: Say that again, Sir.
Mr. Jairam: If she were a Supervisor at the time there will be no other Officer to check?
Sergeant Adams: Well, because there is Commissioner of Police [COP], an application that came from the Commissioner, she will have to now to relate to the Officer in charge to say well I would have completed and then it would have been sent to the Commissioner.
Mr. Jairam: Okay, thanks, that answers …
Mr. Chairman: The document, application for Guyana passport before you. I am trying to get the date here, Cyril Johnson 1999 at page three.
Sergeant Adams: I do not have…
Mr. Chairman: They are not so marked but they are only four sides so it would appear in the middle of that page $1000 dollars was paid.
Sergeant Adams: Yes at that time.
Mr. Chairman: To get the passport.
Sergeant Adams: Applying for a passport, you had to pay $1000 dollar revenue stamp.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. But it would appear that the $1000 came from the Commissioner of Police?
Sergeant Adams: Well I guess because they had to pay for the…
Mr. Chairman: Is that a reasonable inference from what is noted there?
Sergeant Adams: Yes $1000 dollar stamp.
Mr. Chairman: $1000 dollars from?
Sergeant Adams: Well it had to come with the…
Mr. Chairman: From whom according to the document?
Sergeant Adams: Well it had to come from the Commissioner’s Office, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: It came from the Commissioner’s Office?
Sergeant Adams: Yes with the application.
Mr. Chairman: That is all I wanted to clarify. The Commissioner of Police it would appear, paid for the application?
Sergeant Adams: Not necessarily Sir. At that time, whenever you were applying you had to get $1000 revenue stamp so the ST there represent $1000 dollar stamp. It is not actual $1000.
Mr. Chairman: But beside, it is from COP, that is what I am putting to you? I have not created anything. What do you understand that to mean?
Sergeant Adams: No. It indicates that the application form came from him along…
Mr. Chairman: Yes but what about the $1000 dollar that is supporting the application form?
Sergeant Adams: The $1000 dollars is not an actual $1000 dollar Sir. It is $1000 dollar revenue stamp. It is not money of itself but it is a stamp so the ST there stand for $1000 dollar stamp. So whenever you look in the passport, there is a …if I can see the passport to show you please?
Mr. Chairman: So this does not say from whom the $1000 dollar came?
Sergeant Adams: Well the application came from the Commissioner’s office so I suggested that it came from there.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So when the application is submitted, the stamp
Sergeant Adams: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It comes along with it.
Sergeant Adams: The stamp.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Before it can be processed.
Sergeant Adams: Yes, the stamp along with the pictures.
Mr. Chairman: But the stamp here on another document is $1000 dollar stamp.
Sergeant Adams: The stamp is actually on that stamp. The stamp is there.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Alright. So the stamp we are talking about is an Impress stamp, it is not…
Sergeant Adams: No, it is revenue.
Mr. Chairman: Revenue stamp.
Sergeant Adams: It came from the post office. It is an actual stamp.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chairman: I was trying to get from you the source of the $1000 dollar that accompanied the application but you do not seem keen to help me or able to…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: She is not able to. I do not know that she is not keen.
Mr. Chairman: Very well. No more questions from me. Commissioner Mrs. Samuels-Brown would like to question you.
The Greatest Hoax or is it?
Mr. Williams: Okay, this situation with the package with the contents… You said that he was given that package at the airport when he was going out...
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, when he was going out.
Mr. Williams: And, he was being forced to go out, to travel?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: He was not voluntarily travelling?
Mrs. Wagner: That is right.
Mr. Williams: And, he was being forced to travel out to get him out of the way, to put him out of the way? That was Gregory, he was being sent out of the country.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Now, who was forcing him to travel out of the country?
Mrs. Wagner: It was the WPA operatives or whoever... doing... getting all of those stuff together for him and taking him to the airport and doing everything else.
Mr. Chairman: By the, “WPA or whoever...”
Mrs. Wagner: The group. I do not know. I do not know who... I cannot say. I do not know. All I know is what he told me, it was the WPA.
Mr. Williams: Alright, that is what we wanted to confirm. So Gregory never told you he went and obtained this passport?
Mrs. Wagner: No. it was brought to him.
Mr. Williams: Now, let us go to –I would like to refer, Mr. Chairman, the witness to page 44 of the book, page 44 of the book.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay, got it.
Mr. Williams: The second paragraph...
Mrs. Wagner: “Mr. Fowler”?
Mr. Williams: Yes. Read from the beginning of the second paragraph, on page 44.
Mrs. Wagner: “Mr. Fowler was the head of state...”
Mr. Williams: No, we are looking at page 44 of your book.
Mrs. Wagner: Page 44 in...?
Mr. Williams: Page 44 of your book.
Mrs. Wagner: …of the book.
Mr. Williams: Yes, page 44.
Mr. Pilgrim: “Mr. Fowler said that the heads of state of the Caribbean did not find…” Is that the part you want?
Mr. Williams: No, I have 44 here
Mr. Chairman: Are you invited to read, Mr. Pilgrim?
Mr. Williams: “He told me he would bring me up…” Something is wrong with my learned friend, this morning, Sir. Because, I said page 44 several times.
Mr. Pieters: [Inaudible] …the first paragraph.
Mrs. Wagner: No, the second, he is right.
Mr. Williams: I am talking about the second paragraph. I have it.
Mr. Jairam: The first paragraph.
Mr. Williams: “He told me he would...” Well, I always called whatever is at the top as the first...
Mr. Chairman: You...
Mr. Williams: What do you call that?
Mr. Chairman: In the same way that the batsman does not have to play at every ball...
Mr. Williams: [Laughter]
Mr. Chairman: …you do not have to respond to everything that is said by a colleague.
Mr. Williams: [Laughter] That is a unique one. Okay... To be safe, could you read the paragraph beginning with, “He told me he would bring me up...” Are you seeing that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mrs. Wagner: “He told me he would bring me up to date with the developments. I was afraid to interrupt him at any point if I did not understand. He said… carefully consideration [may be] the best brains in the party...’”
Mr. Williams: No, no, no. he said, “…after careful consideration...”
Mrs. Wagner: Oh, yes. “He said after careful consideration by the best brains in the party (the WPA) they had devised a strategy to change history. He said the strategy would involve using the accident to our advantage; turning our loss to out gain. Mr. Fowler said they would use the death of Dr. Rodney as a platform to launch the revolution. He said history would show that the PNC Government provoked the revolution. Mr. Fowler said they needed some more time to organise their plan, and [work without any] problems.”
Mr. Williams: “...without many problems.”
Mr. Chairman: “…while working...”
Mr. Williams: Now, from your understanding of this… Your brother told you this?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And, your understanding of this is that he was saying Fowler was telling you the WPA had intended to set up the PNC, the Government of the day?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And, to blame them wrongfully for the death of Dr. Rodney.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: In other words, all of these years, what was put out about the Government of the day causing the death of Dr. Rodney was the great hoax?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: I would probably say the greatest hoax in the history of this country.
Mrs. Wagner: I would say so, too.
Mr. Williams: I wish to refer you to page 24 of your book.
Mrs. Wagner: I got it.
Mr. Williams: What I am actually doing, counting by my finger... the fourth paragraph from the top.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Beginning with, “Dr. Rodney said....” you see that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney said...”
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Page what?
Mr. Chairman: What page are you on now?
Mrs. Wagner: 24.
Mr. Williams: I am at page 24, one, two, three, four, the fourth paragraph. My colleague cannot take it...
[Laughter]
Mr. Williams: But, you could read this. I hope that he survives. The reading, “Dr. Rodney said the time had...” That sentence.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay, okay.
Mr. Williams: Could you read the whole paragraph?
Mrs. Wagner: Okay. “Dr. Rodney said the time had come for Burnham regime to pay for its crimes, and it was our duty (the WPA) to stop him (Forbes Burnham) before he ceases the absolute power by changing the Constitution. Dr. Rodney said that several stages of the revolution were already completed; we would [not] put the final stages in place soon. He was looking forward to go one phase of the revolution, with special interest. This was capturing of Forbes Burnham and some of his close colleagues...”
Mr. Jairam: madam, you included a ‘not’ when you read after the semicolon. “We would put...” You said, “We would not...”
Mr. Williams: Now, your brother told you this?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And, this was the plan of Dr. Rodney and the WPA to capture, actually capture Forbes Burnham and some of his close colleagues.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Do you understand it to mean that they were planning to physically capture Forbes Burnham and his close colleagues and have them as what, prisoners? That is what you understood?
Mrs. Wagner: That is what they are saying. [Laughter]
Mr. Williams: It is cross-examination, I am not leading...
Mr. Chairman: She has not answered as yet.
Mr. Williams: No, I am waiting for her. She was distracted by the laughter; nervous laughter, I must say.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, it certainly is.
Mr. Chairman: What is her...
Mr. Williams: This is capturing them by force. Do you understand that?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what I understand it to be.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: What I wanted to inquire of you, Mr. Williams, is whether you understood that you were among those colleagues?
Mr. Williams: I was not around, Sir. I am not sure why you all want to put me in that period. I was never around there, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: Very well, Mr. Williams. [Laughter]
Mr. Williams: I do not know if my learned friend, behind me, could say that. Yes. I must say I am sorry I missed the period, because I missed a great man. I never had the opportunity to actually see him and hear him. Yes. Continue to the next paragraph.
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney spent a few minutes talking about Forbes Burnham. He said Forbes Burnham had three houses, with three means of escaping from each. Burnham could escape by helicopter, by car or by boat. Dr. Rodney said that he had seen the plans of Burnham’s escapes routes. He explained how we (the WPA) would prevent Burnham from escaping by helicopter or by car and this would Burnham to escape by boat. Dr. Rodney said we [could] force Burnham to flee by boat.”
Mr. Jairam: “…we would…”
Mr. Williams: Your brother told you this, also?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: “…force him to flee by boat.” Now, you understand that causing him to flee by boat would not be by words. They would not intend to use words to make him flee by boat. Do you agree with that, from this paragraph?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Again, force was contemplated here.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Also, when you look at this paragraph and you read it, do you understand it to say to you that the WPA had Burnham under surveillance?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Deep surveillance, too.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Could you read the next paragraph?
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney said he would prefer to humiliate, President Burnham, with the use of judicial system by convicting the President...”
Mr. Williams: No. that is not the next paragraph, the one above it.
Mrs. Wagner: [Laughter]
Mr. Williams: Do not miss the one above it. The one above it is more potent.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay. “President Burnham fleeing by boat in the night would expose himself to the risk of a serious accident. He would rather take the risk of a serious accident by boat than to allow the WPA to capture…”
10:21hrs
Mr. Williams: To allow, to allow us.
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot even see anymore.
Mr. Williams: “He would rather take the risk of having a serious accident…” continue form there.
Mrs. Wagner: “…accident…”
Mr. Williams: Take your time and read “…by boat…”
Mrs. Wagner: “…accident by boat that to allow us, the WPA to capture him. However, he said it would be too bad if he should die while trying to escape.”
Mr. Williams: Your brother told you this?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Do you understand this is to mean that from reading this paragraph that the WPA was foreseeing that he could die, Burnham could die?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Whilst fleeing by boat?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And they would not be unhappy if that event occurred? You have to speak into the microphone.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Yes what?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what he said.
Mr. Williams: This is from what you are reading here when he said, “Too bad…” he said it would be “too bad if he should die while trying to escape”. Is this saying to you that they are saying… it would be too bad if he died? In other words they would not be disappointed if that happened. Did you understand that to…
Mrs. Wagner: This is what I understand it to be.
Mr. Chairman: …Mr. Williams, I thought you were saying the great preference would be to have him alive, so it would be too bad, highly unfortunate…
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, Sir, I do not get that interpretation, the Witness does not get that either. The Witness is answering. Now read the next paragraph. “Dr. Rodney said he would prefer…”
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney said he would prefer to eliminate him the President Burnham with the use of the Judicial System and convicting President Burnham for his crimes would end his political career. Dr. Rodney had mentioned several crimes that President Burnham had committed. Some were done through instructions. The crimes that Dr. Rodney had mentioned were murder, torture, sexual harassment of women in his employment and conversion of public funds to his personal use.”
Mr. Williams: Now…
Mr. Chairman: I would just say that that paragraph seems to support my interpretation.
Mr. Williams: Yes, I am not hiding anything from you. I am reading the paragraph as how it is supposed to be read. But I am asking her what she thinks. It does not mean if Rodney says this is the next paragraph, they did not contemplate that.
Mr. Chairman: No, but the paragraph speaks for itself. My judgment is that they contradicted nearly a paragraph, my interpretation of it.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but could I ask her this, Mr. Chairman, I am not dividing with you on it but I am saying that we are trying to get into the Witness’s mind which we understood her brother was telling her. Now, reading this paragraph, did your brother tell you whether Mr. Burnham was charged for any offences of this nature?
Mrs. Wagner: Was charged…?
Mr. Williams: If he was charged with murder, torture, sexual harassment, all of those things?
Mrs. Wagner: No, I was not told of that.
Mr. Williams: And therefore, since he was never charged with these offences, this was a figment of the imagination of Dr. Rodney?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know, I guess so. I do not know.
Mr. Williams: She said she guess so. Now, the first paragraph on page 25 just read that.
Mrs. Wagner: “At one of our meetings…”
Mr. Williams: “Dr. Rodney said…” at page 25
Mrs. Wagner: Page 25, the first paragraph, “Dr. Rodney said that if the President Burnham escaped, he would seek political asylum. He said that political asylum would give President Burnham absolute protection, however, he would become a constant threat to our Government. We cannot allow this criminal Burnham to escape.”
Mr. Williams: In other words, you understand it to say that they would get Burnham by any means necessary?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: But alive not dead.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman is that not the same thing?
Mr. Chairman: I will try to follow like everybody else, alive not dead.
Mr. Williams: Of course, your brother told you that, that is what he told you?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Alright I am not going to detain you. You had the pass three days now, this is the fourth day.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: My final question to you is that you believed Gregory Smith, your brother, what he told you and you have in this book here, was the truth?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: No other questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment