Attorney Nigel Hughes yesterday told the Linden Commission of Inquiry that there is ample circumstantial evidence that the police fired on protesters on July 18, 2012, killing three and wounding at least 20.

A day after his dramatic exit from the proceedings, Hughes returned for the wrap-up of the public hearings and told the members of the commission that no offence was meant by his “shoot me” rejoinder to a police witness. That remark had led to the termination of his cross-examination by the Commission and his decision to leave.

Hughes, who is representing the interests of the families of the three men who died on July 18, argued yesterday that the Guyana Police Force’s only defence is that it is not issued with double 0 cartridges – the munitions deemed to have caused the death of Ron Somerset, Allan Lewis and Shemroy Bouyea. Hughes argued that policemen were the only ones to have admitted and been seen using shotguns capable of firing the projectiles.

“It is a fact that all three persons died as a result of double 0 pellets… it’s also a fact that those persons who were injured and testified, the pellets that were recovered were double,” the attorney stated, adding that it is also an uncontroverted fact that these pellets could only be discharged by a shotgun, not by a handgun nor rifle. He contended that the importance of that fact is that it removes the possibility that a concealed weapon could have been used by member in the crowd or the possibility that there had been a sniper shooting on July 18. He added that the shotgun is about three feet in length and as a result, would have been clearly visible to protestors.

“So the question is where was this shotgun located, or these shotguns located, at the time of the shooting?” Hughes asked. He stated that the uncontroverted evidence is that none of the witnesses has testified that they had seen anyone other than policemen armed with a shotgun. “Even the police. They themselves said they didn’t see anyone else armed with a shotgun,” he pointed out.

Superintendent Patrick Todd, he continued, testified that he discharged several rounds after taking them from various persons in the line. Hughes said that Todd also claimed that he was the only person who shot.

Making reference to ballistics expert Mark Robinson’s evidence, Hughes stated that for someone to have been shot by a single pellet, they had to be in excess of 30 to 40 yards away from where the shotgun was fired. If closer, he stated, the target would have been more likely to sustain multiple pellet wounds while in the case of the three deceased, they were shot by single pellets.

Audio

COI Hearing 2/11/12

COI 2-11-12 Part 3

“I know in two of the cases, they had other injuries but they were shot by single pellets that penetrated the body in the region of the heart,” he explained.

Pattern

He noted that Robinson said that because of the lack of additional evidence, he could not determine pattern and precise distance but knew for a fact it could not be more than 30 yards.

“Each of the deceased had to be 30-40 yards away minimum from the shotgun that was discharged to shoot them,” Hughes stated, pointing out that Todd is the only person to claim to have discharged a shotgun and had a clear line of sight of in excess of 30 yards.

The attorney stated that Todd told the commission that he fired into the ground every time he discharged the shotgun in a ricochet method. However, evidence from investigators, Hughes explained, indicated that there was no evidence on the ground that showed rounds were fired there. “Robinson and (Guyana Police Force firearm specialist, Sergeant Eon) Jackson testified that the pellets that were recovered from the bodies of the deceased were certainly not fired ricochet,” Hughes stated.

Number 4 and number 6

He added that it is the claim of the police that they had in their possession two kinds of pellets, number 4 and number 6, deeming it an interesting fact that not a single protestor who was shot or not a single pellet that was examined was consistent with number 4 or number 6.

“And it wasn’t like one cartridge was discharged, several cartridges were discharged. I say that only to draw the scientific inference that it is unlikely that the police who discharged several rounds, would fire ricochet and either not hit a single person or there would not be any evidence of those pellets buried in the surface,” he concluded.

Hughes stated that with the evidence provided, there can only be two possibilities, one of which was that someone on the police line armed with a shotgun discharged a double 0 cartridge resulting in the death of three persons and secondly, an unseen gunman armed with a shotgun doing the firing.

“The police case is they heard four loud explosions coming from the vicinity of the bridge, if not the bridge, then Linmine… For a gunman to be armed with a shotgun and fire from the bridge and cause the death of those three persons, those persons would have had to been at about 30 yards from the gunman to sustain the single pellet injury that they did,” he projected.

The practical reality, he continued is that if a gunman was on the bridge where several hundreds of persons were standing and he discharged a shotgun that resulted in the death of three persons, the crowd would have had to have parted for about three yards, allowing the pellet to travel in the direction of the target. “Or he was much taller than the crowd or elevated on the bridge where he was elevated so he can shoot someone 30 yards away… or if he was in the Linmine compound, the same facts would apply… The credible facts are not consistent with someone standing in the middle of a crowd with a shotgun that is not seen and discharging it and not injuring several people around him with multiple pellet injury with a single shot,” Hughes declared.

Phantom gunman

“It is my respectful submission that it would strain the credibility of the commission to find not only was there this phantom gunman with a shotgun who was not seen by anybody, not a single person, one can discount that on the basis that eyewitness testimonies are quite often unreliable but the scientific facts are that he could not have discharged a shotgun with double 0 cartridges and not strike several people if he was in the middle of the crowd,” Hughes submitted.

He stated that although the police claim that they are not responsible for causing the deaths, they do not deny being present neither firing and at a distance in excess of 30 yards away from the crowd.

“All they say is that officially we do not issue double 0 cartridges. That is their defence. It tells us then that because we don’t keep double 0 cartridges and the cartridges that were issued were either number 4 or number 6… what they are saying is this. Not that we didn’t have the weapons that were capable, it is not that we were not at a distance which is consistent with causing the death of these individuals, it is not that we weren’t present, it is that we don’t stock double 0,” Hughes argued.

In addition to this, the lawyer stated that it was the evidence of Constable Colin Rodney that he could not distinguish the various types of ammunition and “picks up any type”. In addition to this, Hughes said that it was Todd’s evidence that he took weapons from both sides of the police line and discharged them, “which means he took shotguns from officers whose ammunition he couldn’t account for”.

The only conclusion that is reasonable, that is consistent with science and that is consistent with the eyewitness testimonies that we have heard in the commission is that the deceased were shot by shotguns that the police had in their custody and discharged. A lot of noise has been made about the fact that there is no direct evidence of the police shooting the deceased because police never had double 0 cartridges… this is equivalent with a man standing with a gun over a man who was recently shot and the only reason he says it is not he that shot is because the bullet in the deceased is not one he normally has but the gun he has is capable of firing that bullet,” Hughes said.

He posited that whether the protests were legal or not is irrelevant in ascertaining who shot and killed the three men.