DOWN MEMORY LANE
This week we look at the evidence of police officers, Dominic Leong Wen Yam and Florry Stravens both persons were directly involved in the criminal investigation and witness the statement of Guy pool and Daphne Pool. Stravens was used by Ashford to cajole Daphne Pool to implicate Albert Rene as the main culprit behind the Reef Hotel bombing. Daphne Pool agreed to grass on Mr. Rene after being offered an inducement to be released on bail for her to see her children. At the time several persons had been arrested including Rene Vidot, Claude Vidot,and Bonte. The saga continues…………..
The Guy Pool trial
Q. On Thursday night in the middle of the night. Do you remember going in the cell of Rene Vidot with Ashford?
A. I paid a visit to Rene Vidot on one night. I made a note in my notebook. He told me that the allegation he had made about the loss of money from his house was false. It was 10 p.m. (refers to notebook). I paid one of my usual visits to the prisoners just to ascertain their well being. I was on duty that night.
Q. In charge of the station?
A. No. I don’t remember who was the duty officer. It is not often during the night that I visit prisoners in the cells, about once or twice a night.
Q. How many people do that?
A. I don’t know. When I go I am by myself, under the instructions of Mr. Ashford. I do not ask him questions. I went to see Rene Vidot by myself. I did not go with Mr. Ashford. I did not have a torch. I don’t have it in my notebook. Mr. Ashford did not gnash his teeth. This never happened. I’ve heard people say that he threw people out from restaurants but I don’t know. I have never thrown anyone out from restaurants. I did not see Mr. Ashford slapping Rene Vidot on the back that night. He did not go to the cell.
Q. You couldn’t have heard Rene Vidot telling you “Tell your couyon Ashford that on the day he slaps me again like that I’ll tear him off with my teeth in such a way that he will have to go to England to get a plastic nose or whichever part I’ll bite off him?
A. No.
Q. Were you at the station on Friday morning about 8?
A. As far as I remember I was. I arrived at the office at 8.30 (refers to notebook).
Q. Did you hear Rene Vidot shouting “Ashford, Fenner, Ashford I want to see Fenner”?
A. No. Most probably I saw Mr. Fenner when I arrived at the office at 8.30 not before. I knew Rene Vidot was released. I don’t know the time he was released. If he was released on Friday he must have been kept in custody for more than 24 hours. To my knowledge he was not taken to court . For some time both Vidots were in custody at the station.
Q. Only one Vidot was involved?
A. Yes.
Q. My friend put it to accused that this statement was the first inkling that the police had of the other people involved.
A. I don’t know why both Vidots were kept in custody. It was done through the instructions of Mr. Ashford. I was with Mr. Ashford when Claude Vidot was arrested.
Q. Was he searched at the station?
A. Yes, he was searched by the N.C.O. in charge. I don’t remember who it was. I took Claude Vidot to the cell. I do not remember if Mr. Ashford followed me to the cell. He might have. Mr. Ashford told Claude why he was arrested. Rene Vidot was told why he was arrested. I arrested him.
Q. When Mr. Ashford cautioned Rene Vidot he did not tell him what it was about?
A. Except he wanted to know his other names.
Q. Can you remember a conversation by Mr. Ashford with Claude Vidot through you in the cell?
A. No there was no conversation. I do not remember if he asked for a lawyer. He never mentioned it to me.
Q. Later that night about 2 a.m. did you take Claude Vidot from his cell to an office upstairs?
A. It was not at 2 a.m. It was about 12 p.m. Mr. Ashford asked him about his other name.
Q. Why not wait for the next day?
A. I don’t know. I was following Mr. Ashford’s instructions. Vidot decline to answer. That was the second time I brought him upstairs.
Q. Was there any reason to think between the two times that Claude Vidot’s intention had changed?
A. I don’t know what Mr. Ashford had in mind.
Q. Mr. Ashford asked him “once and for all will you say that Mr. Rene put the bomb”?
A. No. I never saw a revolver. I did not note it down because it never happened . Mr. Ashford did not point the revolver at Claude Vidot.
Q. You remember on a subsequent night going into his cell and shining a light into his face?
A. I paid one of my visits to him at 10 – 10.30 but I did not carry a torch. I was asked by Mr. Ashford to come and work with him and I did. It was part of my duty to see the prisoner. I went at 10 or 10.30 as part of my routine visits. I remember I had to get the key from the guard on sentry at the gate. When I passed by his cell I called his name. He was lying on his bed. He had a blanket wrapped around his head. I called him two or three times. He did not reply. I asked him “Claude are you all right”. He did not answer. Seeing the blanket wrapped around his head I thought he was dead or something. I got the key from the guard. I went in. I touched him. He did not respond to my touch. I pulled his blanket from around his head and he woke up. I asked him if he was all right and he said yes. I had seen Claude Vidot before. He was not a friend. Guy was a friend. I could have asked him if he was all right during the day. Guy never has a blanket around his head. On the occasions I paid my visits to the cells at night I did not go in the cells. I walked along the cells. I got the guard to open the door leading to the corridor. Mr. Ashford instructed me to check the prisoners at night. It forms part of my duty.
A. Claude Vidot said you walked into his cell, prodded you fingers into his back several times and told him he would be baised if he did not say that Mr. Rene had put the bomb?
Q. That’s not correct. The time I went into his cell, I got the guard to open the door. I unwrapped the blanket from his head. He did not tell me that the doctor prescribed the blanket for him. I did remove his cigarettes and matches. I was instructed by Mr. Ashford not to leave matches and cigarettes with prisoners at night for safety reason. That night after unwrapping the blanket from his head, I saw the matches and cigarettes with Claude Vidot and I took them away. He had a packed of Bird’s Eye tobacco not cigarettes.
Re-examination: I had a conversation with Rene Vidot one night. I noted it down. He called me while I was passing in the corridor. He told me he had something to tell me. I approached his cell and I told him that before telling me something I had to caution him. He said it was nothing concerning the bomb affair. He had a complaint to the police that after searching his house on Monday he had lost some money but it was totally false. I told him if he wanted to write it as a statement. He said no he only wanted to tell me. I made a note of this.
By court: It is part of my duty to see that the prisoners are in their cells at night and to ascertain if they are all right. Most of the times they were not sleeping. I asked them if they were all right and they said yes. Usually I go about 10.30 and they would not be asleep by that time. On two occassions I took Rene and Claude from their cells to the office upstairs.
No further questions. Witness released.
P.W. 18 W.P.C. Florry Stravens
A.G.: I offer her for cross-examination
Cross-examined:
Q. You remember the statement taken on 31st/1st August by Wen Yam and you were a witness?
A. Yes.
Q. I put it to you that you did not sit there throughout the whole time the statement was taken?
A. No I sat there all the time. Mr. Ashford came in twice. On one occasion he came to fetch a book. I did not see any other senior police officers at the station that night. I did not see Mr. Fenner, or the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Mott was not there. I patrolled the town area that night with Mr. Ashford and Wen Yam. We went to
The first time I saw accused was on the 31st and it was about 6 o’oclock. I did not really speak to him as I did not know him. I did not speak to him. When I met them in the cells I said “hello, how are you”?
Q. Accused said that you and Wen Yam saw him at 6.30 – 7 and you asked him if he was happy there?
A.. I don’t remember being in the cell with Wen Yam.
Q. And he said “how can I be happy in a cell when I don’t know why I’ve been charged?”
A. I never heard that being said to me. There was no such conversation.
Q. And you and Wen Yam said to him “we have lots of evidence against you, why don’t you take our advice?”
A. No.
Q. Later that night did Mr. Ashford go in accused cell, with you and Wen Yam standing by the door?
A. The only time I went with Mr. Ashford to the cells was at 3.40. We did not go inside the cells. We went in the compound. I did not go in accused’s cell. We stood outside and spoke to him. Nobody entered the cell. I did not see Mr. Ashford go into the cell.
Q. (Exhibit BB shown to accused and asked to look at caution). From which book or document did Wen Yam copy that part?
A. He just said it to accused. He got it from his mind. I did not see any sheets of paper with Wen Yam. I did not see any sheets of typed paper with him. I had no paper with me and what was I to tell Daphne that it was
I know Claude Vidot. I knew him after he was arrested. I am not allowed to go in men’s cells.
Q. Do you remember going into his cell one night?
A. No.
Q. Didn’t you sit down near where he was sitting?
A. I did not go in his cell. I spoke to him through the grilled window, not at night but during the day. I said “hello Claude, how are you”? Just to greet him. I have nothing to do with men’s cells.
Q. In his cell one night did you tell him he was a strange person and that even though he was offered money by people when he was poor he did not accept?
A. I did not say that.
Q. Did you caress him on his legs?
A. Of course not.
Q. Through the grill maybe?
A. This did not happen. He can say whatever he likes.
No re-examination. Witness released.
Mr. Kapila: I close my case.
A.G.: I wish to apply for record officer of criminal records to prove previous convictions denied by defence witnesses during trial within a trial.
Cross on evidence 3rd edition P.219. Cap. 81, S.12 of our laws evidence applicable in
Mr. Kapila: I oppose the application I am not withdrawing the objection. I leave it on record.
Court: I allow the application on authorities quoted by A.G.
P.W. 28 Dominic Leong Wen Yam (sworn)
I am the Criminal Record Officer in the
On 19th September I looked up also the record of Daphne Pool and I drew up a similar certificate which I produce. Exhibit FF (No objection)
No cross-examination.
A.G.: I submit that rebutting evidence of Mr. Waye Hive will be vital to this case. His information took us by surprise. I apply to call evidence to rebutt the evidence of Mr. Athanasius on the ground that it is material to the case. Prosecution asks court to grant leave to call rebutting evidence.
Cross on evidence 3rd edition P.223. Prosecution was unable to foresee that evidence would be called that the scream was heard.
Court: Application not allowed. A.G.: I am not calling further evidence to prove previous convictions of Daphne Pool and Rene Vidot.
A.G.: Onus of establishing voluntariness of alleged confession of accused rests upon Crown. I have to show Your Lordship beyond reasonable doubt that confession should be admitted.
Archbold para 1116.
Here allegation made against crown is that promises of favour, menace were made by police officers. I contend that this threat, promise or inducement never existed. Recorder of statement Mr. Wen Yam called. His evidence P.105 typed record. Before any questions were put to him he gave clearly in evidence the steps he took following the Judges’ Rules in this case. Reference p. 103, 104. He followed to the letter the Judges’ Rules in particular Rule 4.
Evidence of Mr. Lau Tee, Mr. Ashford and Miss Stravens that accused wanted to make a statement. He called Lau Tee and said he wished to see investigation officer. He called his sister and she agreed. Accused said he told his sister that otherwise he would be killed. Not borne out by Lau Tee and P.C. Pierre Jean a young P.C., with force 7 months. It was put to him that statement on advice of Mr. Ashford. He said that Mr. Ashford had not spoken to him. He and Mr. Lau Tee not shaken in cross-examination. He said accused called Mr. Lau Tee. No doubt that accused wanted to make a statement.
On Exhibit BB and Your Lordship has heard evidence of Wen Yam, Your Lordship can see that accused was cautioned. He was asked if he wanted to write his own statement and he told the officer to write it out for him.
Rule 4 (d) Mr. Wen Yam has repeatedly said here on oath that throughout statement he never asked a single question. In statement accused has given facts and details which Wen Yam could never have concoted. Defence wants court to believe that police made up a statement and asked the accused to read it and it was fixed to suit accused’s wishes. Defence also says that police mentioned 3 names i.e. Bonte, Flake Vidot and Albert Rene. If police had these names before it why did it not arrest Bonte and Vidot before. It means that information came from accused. This was new information which police had not had before or otherwise other action would have been taken. Statements of Wen Yam, Ashford and Stravens show that Flake was only a nickname to them. They arrested one Claude Vidot and he was released when they found out he was not Flake. If police had known before they would have told accused to put in name of Rene Vidot. Name of Bonte was mentioned. Accused said he first met a black boy at station and he was called Bonte. If police had known then would have put in name of Harry Bonte. Court can’t believe such make up of story. What defence is suggesting is that Mr. Ahsford should write thrillers. Your Lordship can see that minor details of which police could not know at all was put in the statement. Truth can be assessed. Man tells a story and he puts in his own personality. If police had made up the story he could not have put in personality of accused.
Police evidence is that accused was given water to drink during the statement and he also went to the toilet. He slowly unburdened himself of story. At that time only evidence police had was that of Stanley Hermitte but he depones as from the time after the explosion. Matters before explosion was not known to
Statements taken from many people since 14th February. Things break when
Wen Yam gave evidence that statement was finished at 6 a.m. Evidence of Mr. Ashford, Mr. Fenner and Mr. Goodchild who were at the station. Mr. Goodchild is said by accused that he well treated the prisoners. He looked and examined every complaint that was made. He phone Mr. Valabhji, lawyer of most prisoners and he arranged for Rene Vidot to see his brother Claude. His justifications of the complaints do not lay with your Lordship. I would stress that Mr. Goodchild has impressed the court as a man who wanted justice. Mr. Fenner has given account as to his presence at the station. 2 persons involved in serious offence were likely to confess and Mr. Fenner, Mr. Goodchild and Mr. Mott studied the matter while confessions were going on.
Defence would have court believe that at time these 3 police officers were sitting in same HQ Mr. Ashford was busy putting a gun at head of accused and punching him and giving him cups of coffee. Your Lordship can visualise the dangerous course that a police officer would be treading while his superior officers were within earshot. Mr. Goodchild was there and he investigated the complaints. Impossible to conceive that a police officer did what defence says Mr. Ashford did.
Mr. Fenner and Mr. Goodchild were in the station and in that time defence says that Mr. Ashford punched accused so hard that he fainted and levelled a gun at his head while at any time the commissioner could have walked in and his whole career jeopardised. I submit no police officer could do such a thing. Number of allegations made against police. So serious that if believed that no confession by anybody ever again could ever be believed.
P. 104 and 105 of typed script – Objection of my friend – Not one suggestion that it was a completely forged and forced statement. It was what my friend has put to prosecution witnesses that statement was made by police, cooked up and concoted and made to suit in with know facts. Standard statement whereby a line or word changed and added and a rounding off can suit any set of facts. Defence expects court to believe that police made up a statement and asked accused to change it to suit their convenience.
No questions were put to accused. Wen Yam was cross-examined widely on his relations with accused and Daphne, Rene and Claude Vidot and his evidence was unshaken in cross-examination. He has shown himself to be a very astute and bright P.C. For Your Lordship to assess his intelligence. Willing to say he spoke to prisoners and that he took off a blanket from a prisoner because he was not sure whether the man was alive or not. I put it to Rene Vidot that he told Wen Yam his complaint about loss of money was false. Mr. Wen Yam took out his notebook while giving evidence and said so. It is a great point of credibility.
Allegation against Mr. Ashford is that while he knew Mr. Fenner, Mr. Goodchild and Mr. Mott were in the station he beat accused, put a gun to his head and made him sign the statement while at anytime one of those 3 officers could have walked in. Mr. Fenner said that one time he was about to go in the room. Unlikely that Mr. Ashford did what it’s alledged he did. Impossible for officer of his standing to do such a thing. He would not have called Mr. Fenner to the station.
Evidence of Wen Yam – suggested that outside statement, he went to La Gigolette with Ashford and Stravens. Stravens and Wen Yam denied that and not shaken on this. Ashford said he was there earlier. Corroborated by evidence of Mr. Martinez who came here at short notice. Mr. Ashford did not approach him, no such evidence. He made statement to Mr. Stone and then came to court. He said what happened on night of 31st July. Defence witness Bastienne said Ashford, Wen Yam and Stravens were at La Gigolette later on that evening. Mr. Savy was never called to give evidence. Bastienne not shown to
Wen Yam’s evidence corroborated in small details. He did not go to cells at 3.40. He stayed outside the cells completely. Ashford corroborated by P.C. Jean that he went to take accused from his cell. Stravens took Daphne from her cell. Met by Wen Yam and went upstairs. Evidence of Stravens on that point not shaken at all. Accused wanted to speak to his sister. He did so and told her he would tell the truth and she said why should they suffer in someone else’s place and she agreed to talk.
Even before any brutality is alleged to have started, Ashford sent for Mr. Fenner. Ashford open and above board. Suggested by accused that evidence was taped. Flight of imagination by accused. If tape was used, the police would produce that. Nothing contrary to Judges’ Rules. This the police never did. They deny it completely. It’s unlikely a tape was used. I’ve never heard of police taping statement. Your Lordship will appreciate it’s difficult to get cassette which would run for 2¼ hours. It was put to Stravens in cross-examination that she offered accused cigarettes. She was taken aback when they mentioned Embassy cigarettes. In accused’s evidence in chief he did not mention smoking at all. It came out in cross-examination. In re-examination he said he smoked 40 – 45 cigarettes. He was speaking in a microphone and reading from a typed sheet. He smoked one cigarette every 3 minutes. He also drank 3 cups of coffee. If his story is to be believed he smoked 3 cigarettess at a time. Accused expects court to believe such a story. He said clearly 2pkts and some which he got from Stravens. If Court is to believe that evidence, against evidence of Stravens and Wen Yam then there is no difficulty to believe that police evidence is the truth
Allegations against Ashford are lies. Accused said in evidence that when Ashford struck him he split his lip inside and it bled. Evidence of Dr. McGregor. If lip was split he would expect to find swelling of face. He never found any such thing.
Daphne said she got 2 hard slaps across the face with open hand. Accused said her face puffed up even at breakfast time. Dr. said that it normally takes 24 hours to go down. Daphne is vague as to the time but we gather it took place sometime after midnight. Doctor examined her in the afternoon. He noticed no swelling of puffing up. Submit Daphne is not be believed. She said she was sitting down when she was slapped. On question by Court she said both she and Ashford were standing. She lied in one instance. She said Ashford pulled her hair and banged her head against the wall but it was only slightly. She realised she had made no complaint at all. She was not told not to complain – from her evidence. She did not complain. Doctor said he knew Daphne very well. She has probably been examined many times by him. He knew her. Not like a person he’s seen for the first time. Doctor and patient knowing each other. Court must believe what Dr. said.