Lost or Stolen



The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is a region of the Atlantic Ocean in which a number of documents have disappeared in what are said to be circumstances that fall beyond the boundaries of human error or acts of nature But is the BHC file lost or stolen; another triangle tale or removed by a reprobate? Have the police put it down somewhere that can now not be recalled, or has someone dishonestly removed it? Is anyone sure just where the file is or was what of the continuity of recent events:

1. 13th June reported: the original files are `missing'. In an affidavit Commissioner George Jackson said copies of the top-secret documents have been recovered, the whereabouts of the originals are
unknown. No mention of `theft'.

2. 19th June reported: In the ruling by the Chief Justice "Despite the Deputy Commissioner's repeated use of the word "stolen", it is not at all clear from her affidavit whether it is alleged that physical documents have been removed from the possession of the police with the intention of permanently depriving the police of them, or whether the documents on the file have simply been copied by someone and released. It is an important distinction, because the actual removal of physical documents could amount to the theft of those documents, but the copying of them may not."

3. 22nd June reported: George Jackson is said to have apologized to the public for the `theft' of documents. So the papers have been stolen? Has anyone told Deputy Commissioner Roseanda Young? Does the officer understand one of the most basic offences encountered by police officers, that of `theft'? Does George's change of heart result from the Court's decision, or has it taken the police this long to come to the conclusion that the papers are indeed stolen? How was it not possible to conclude
virtually immediately that the file was indeed `stolen'? Did it take days to ask about everyone "have you seen it?" and eventually conclude that something was amiss?

  • Does the head of the constabulary, George Jackson appreciate the difference between lost and stolen?

Deputy Commissioner Roseanda Young's has apparently said, with regard to 'The Leak' that 'special measures in place to secure all official documentation'. However, the file was at first said by the Commissioner, George Jackson, to be lost but now it appears to have been stolen ....

Given the 'special' security measures in place, surely the secret, confidential, sensitive file could not have gone missing; it must have been removed by some criminal mastermind, a Raffles of the information age? Come on Deputy Commissioner Roseanda Young, just what were those `special measures in place to secure all official documentation' a bigger padlock on the box or stronger string tied around the bundle?  Surely, with the additional security tracking the movement of the file from one person to another, must be simple - who had it last? Who booked the file out of the secure environment? Continuity of evidence is a basic task and consideration in a professional, trained, efficient and effective police service.

  • But do (or did) the police still have the file?

There are so many facets to the `loss' or `theft' of the file, beneficial and detrimental aspects for all parties; the police, Government, the suspects. But why does everyone appear to believe that the papers are (or were) indeed lost or stolen?

We suspect the intention of whoever liberated the copy(?) documents was to expose the high level scandal and / or the lack of investigation. Coppers, working officers, are predisposed to
bringing the bad guys to book, they are not political animals. Don't tell a thorough investigator that someone is above the law (a law unto themselves) or special conditions / privileges apply. All
witnesses are public property. When you start excluding a section of the community, where do you stop what are the `rules' for including or excluding people? We've never seen a police training manual
include a statement to the effect that once a suspect's income, office or rank is above a certain level you must resist the temptation to ask questions.

  • Do Bermuda police now means-test those suspected of criminal offences?

Whoever released the file to the press may not have had the foresight to consider all the implications, but then whoever buried the file within the Bermuda Police is unlikely to have considered or envisaged
all the ramifications of doing so.

Lost or stolen, who knows? Our suspicion the file is or was held by the police when the story broke but it is easier for the police and Government to cite lost or stolen because it accounts for the papers
being in the public domain and will provide them a superficial excuse not to reinvestigate. Anyone considering the fiasco needs to adopt the annoying infant mind-set for every statement you must respond with `why?' Take nothing at face value, believe nothing you hear or read unless it is  corroborated. Take the `special measures'; easy to say but the file went missing, not so special eh? Were there any additional measures, or are we being fobbed off?

`Lost' was a reasonable first response by the police in that they did not box themselves into a corner; the file could subsequently have been found. But `lost' is a peculiar first response when one considers
that the confidential file was apparently the subject of special measures; why could the police not immediately identify that the file was taken without authority? If `special measures' were in place
surely it would have taken little time to discover the file had been removed without authority?

Is it that after days of looking(?) for this file, the subject of additional security, and apparently failing to locate same, the police (on advice?) have decided to bite the bullet, stick their heels in and claim `theft'?  Do the police now feel obliged to claim `theft' to cover ineptitude, ensure the public support an investigation and to drag a UK constabulary into the fray. How embarrassing would it be if the file now turned up in a police office? Was it ever lost or stolen, or has someone now tossed it on
a barbeque to ensure that the original never surfaces?

The Bermuda police are very well aware that their security is shameful. The content of this site  stands testament to the fact that documents are available and no one gives much care to this. Consider the events involving Carlton `clueless' Adams during 1990, reported on this site (click here for more information).  Obtaining information from a police office is simple: ignore the ineffective locks that are placed on doors! In 1990 my office was the subject of an unauthorised entry during a major investigation; I was able to visit clueless-Adams office with similar ease.

It is of note the BHC scandal file in which the Premier is named received additional, special treatment; it was handled with greater security. What faith does that give anyone else suspected of a criminal offence? Is it time for a complete audit of the files in the possession of the police and security of same? Just how many have grown legs and walked? When will these papers surface?

We would be very interested to learn whether the police have a copy or copies of the BHC file. Do they back up to a secure location, are documents scanned and retained? Is it the case that the only copies
currently possessed by the police are those they have recently seized or been given?

  • Is it a coincidence that the file has recently been discovered to be `missing' and a copy is now circulating?

Just when did the police realise that the file was missing? Was it when the papers started to surface in the press that someone thought to check where they were, to have a stock take? If so (and we suspect this to be the case given the coincidence of the loss being discovered after the papers surfaced) just when did the file go missing this year, last or . ??? When did the police become aware that the papers were absent? Did they know about this weeks, months or years ago but
thought to keep quiet about it, kept their fingers crossed hoping that the file would never surface?

  • Why did the police not know the file was missing before it surfaced in the press, or did the events (coincidentally - we do not like coincidences)  happen at the same time?

We are curious is it the case the file has only just been taken, 3 years after the enquiry concluded or is it the case that the file was removed a long time ago? Is it that there has been no theft? Is it simply that the documents in circulation are an old copy and that in addition to this replica sneaking out the back door of an office (where ever), the original coincidentally became `lost'? Is it the case that the file was inadvertently or intentionally discarded and subsequently found by someone who passed it to the press? The police appear to have trouble identifying whether a theft has occurred, what chance they have of solving the 'mystery'?

Given the nature of the enquiry, all is not lost. Whilst some original exhibits may have been lost, the BHC scandal relates to the alleged misappropriation of funds. Banks and businesses, to include  Governments, keep records. The flow of money must be accounted for and in the age of computers, records will remain.

  • Time to get the forensic accountants in! Employ some professionals from abroad to undertake an impartial enquiry.




To e-mail click here:


to visit www.bermudapolice.com click here



IMPORTANT NOTICE: Bermuda.org.uk has taken reasonable care in sourcing and presenting the information contained on this site, but accepts no responsibility for any financial or other loss or damage that may result from its use. Bermuda.org.uk is not an official or authorised Bermuda police web site.