Home
Up
Doc 910528DG
930428BI
statement '93
930622BI

Rebuttal to C.O.P's Statement

The C.O.P.'s statement (14.09.98) to the Royal Gazette

It would be rude and inappropriate, at this time, to call the Commissioner of Police a liar. In the circumstances, it is probable there are those within the Bermuda Police force who cannot recall the events of 8 years ago.  Possibly the C.O.P. has simply been misinformed, intentionally or otherwise.  Irrespective, the 'statement' to the Royal Gazette is inaccurate, it is not the truth.

Rebuttal

The Commissioner of Police has apparently advised the Royal Gazette (reported in issue - 14.09.98)

"It should be noted that the aggrieved officer declined during the investigation to provide any substantial evidence to validate his claims of impropriety and misconduct"

I have never been asked to provide any substantial evidence to validate my claim.  None should have been required, Detective Inspector Jackson was fully aware of the 'problems' in the Narcotics office, had he (and others) chosen to enlighten Mr Bissell, or the Commissioner of Police my statement and complaint would have been upheld in an instant.

It is apparent everyone remained silent, or misinformed the investigator(s), assuming there was an investigation.  I have attempted to have the matter resurrected without success.

I made my complaint(s) in 1990, the matters may have been investigated, but no one returned to me asking for further information.  I was simply advised by way of a copy memorandum (from the Deputy Governor's Office to the C.O.P.) dated 28th May 1991, that there was 'no evidence to support my allegations'.

The Commissioner of Police should be fully aware that I have extended every assistance to enquiries.  Even having been the subject of a despicable dismissal, I returned to Bermuda, in May 1991, to give evidence in Supreme Court trials.

The day after I landed on the Island, I was met in Hamilton by a serving Bermudan officer.  I was asked if I would meet with the former, disgraced, officer, Leo Simmons.  Former PC Simmons had received a term of imprisonment for possession of narcotics, this in itself was newsworthy however, the O.I.C. narcotics, Mr Ramsey had been associated with the arrest and evidence was given in the trial of Leo referring to Mr Ramsey as "Daddy" (there was no known family connection).

I did meet with Leo Simmons, the conversation was taped (unknown to Leo) and I lodged the tape with Kim White a solicitor with Cox and Wilkinson.  The tape was the subject of a receipt. 

I informed Mr Bissell (police Officer) of the tape's existence.   The Bermuda police subsequently requested this, by letter.   I have NEVER been asked to supply any evidence in support of my allegations other than the provision of a statement.

I cite the request for the tape and that I handed it over as clear evidence, contrary to the COP's recent statement, that I have provided every assistance.  It is in my interest to do so.

Subsequently, the matter of blank, signed, search warrants was raised.  I had discussed the matter with a Bermuda Barrister who had approached me in relation to a client awaiting trial for the importation of a controlled drug.  The Barrister reported the facts on his return to Bermuda

I was contacted by (then) Chief Inspector Bissell and asked if I would make a statement, this in 1993. 

I had no reason to believe this statement was other than in connection with the use, by Narcotics personnel, of blank (signed) search warrants.  I agreed to the meeting at an hotel in England.  I attended voluntarily, at my own cost, on 28th April 1993.

In support of my belief this meeting was to be in connection with the warrants, I prepared a statement for Mr Bissell.  The full text of this can be read (see: document 930428BI).

I readily admit to not providing a blank, signed, search warrant.  Did Chief Inspector Bissell really expect me to walk about an unknown hotel with original evidence to support serious breaches of the law?  The important aspect is that I was willing to provide the 'evidence' as  I wrote:

"I will not be drawn on my current possession of search warrants, I will await the outcome of the investigation, or at least an indication (in writing) of how it is progressing"

If Mr Bissell cannot recall this, all he need do is say.  I have a copy of the statement I typed, it is signed by Mr Bissell.

No one ever returned to me, I was easily available yet no one approached me requesting confirmation that the warrants actually existed.

You can view one, on this site (see: Evidence - blank warrant)

There was much general conversation about the state of Bermuda and that 1990 had been the best year the Narcotics department had ever seen.  I was advised that I should be thankful I was away from the Country (Bermuda).

After the informal conversation, rather than being questioned about search warrants I was politely questioned about the 'Trappaso exhibit'; a seizure of $19,000 from a person arrested in connection with the Miranda enquiry.  I was asked if I knew where the money (the exhibit) was.

This is what the meeting was really about.  Mr Bissell was not interested in the blank search warrants (this was not pursued further by him), there was a 'domestic' problem in Bermuda; someone had stolen an exhibit from the Court!

To my knowledge, the money was in the Narcotics office, submitted (sealed) to the exhibits officer, all $19,000 of it.

The manner of questioning did Mr Bissell credit.  I, having nothing to do with the disappearance of the cash, provided frank answers.  Only subsequently was I advised the entire exhibit was not missing, just a portion of it; $6,000.

Clearly, this had not been revealed at an earlier stage by Mr Bissell in an attempt to ascertain whether I would make mention of the 'entire' exhibit or a 'portion of it'.   I am appreciative of this approach as it gave me the opportunity to clear my name (as best possible).

Irrespective, I had not signed for the money nor had I sealed it. 

It transpired the money ($6,000) is believed to have been stolen from the Court while the trial was underway.

At 2050hrs (8.50pm) 28th April 1998, at the hotel, I made a statement for Mr Bissell.

Tip:

The only means by which to ensure your account is exactly what you require and in an attempt to prevent someone adding to it later, is to write the statement yourself.   It is more difficult for another to forge your handwriting.  You receive additional benefits if you use your own pen; the likelihood of a subsequent addition being in the same ink at a later date is remote.  VSC (Video Spectral Comparator) uses lighting techniques to establish, by non-destructive methods, whether all entries are made in the same ink.

I wrote my own statement.  This deals purely with the Trapasso exhibit; see - the statement 28th April 1993

Given the seriousness of the allegations concerning the blank (signed) warrants I was not even asked to give a statement to the effect; I am unwilling to provide any assistance or evidence to substantiate my claim of impropriety or misconduct.  I challenge the C.O.P. to produce such a statement.

Did Mr Bissell travel to England  in relation to the search warrant investigation?   I do not believe so.

I was asked to attend the hotel under false pretences.  I was ambushed with questions about a stolen exhibit and it was in respect of this and this alone, I provided a statement.

My statement concluded at 2100 hrs (9.00pm).

Was it ever reported that $6,000 in cash was stolen from the Supreme Court (number 1? - where the trial was taking place) presumably in 1991.  I suspect not.

The newspaper also reports the C.O.P. as saying:

a full investigation was launched at the time of the initial complaint and the enquiry remained open, subject to new information coming to light.

I ask the Commissioner to support this statement.  Please produce the document that conveys this to me.  The enquiry was closed; dead and buried.

This was conveyed to me in the Deputy Governor's memo' to the C.O.P. dated 28th May 1991, see - document 910528DG

The C.O.P required new information.   This was sent. 

In 1996, I received the letter from Inspector Gibbons, see - Officer's Letter.   In this letter the Officer acknowledged I was subverted and betrayed.  This was new information, provided by a serving Officer who had worked in the Narcotics department with me, an Officer with first-hand experience.  A person who, until this date had been silent.

I sought the assistance of the Officer to bring the information to the attention of the Commissioner.  His reply; it was not his place to be banging on the Commissioner's door.

By March 1997 it was evident the Officer would not help me.  I therefore wrote to the C.O.P., by recorded delivery to include a proof of receipt.  I sent the new information.

The letter was received by the Bermuda Police.  It was never acknowledged by them.   I did not hear another word from them, nor have I to this date despite the new information.

I sent the new information to the Bermuda Governor's Office, using the identical posting procedure.  Again, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

I ask the Commissioner of Police:

Just what better new information could you have hoped for?

Here is / was an Officer prepared to admit that which no one previously  had commented on; I was "subverted and betrayed".

Why was I subverted and betrayed?

Why, when this new information was presented did you not, in accordance with your latest statement, re-open the investigation?

Why was this new information suppressed?

I believe the answers to the above will be revealed in these web pages. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx