DOWN MEMORY LANE
The Guy Pool trial
“I believe that Guy Pool is innocent” says Geva.
Q. Have you discussed this case with Mr. Rene?
A. Whose case, Pool’s case, Bonte’s case or Mr. Rene’s case?
Q. Is there a case against Mr. Rene?
A. I thought there was at first but it does not look as if there is now.
Q. What was Mr. Rene’s state of mind when he returned at 2 a.m.?
A. Very sober he does not drink. I don’t mean he did not drink at all. He could have had a couple of beers but he was a sober man.
Q. Apart from being sober could you help the court about any other emotional attitude which he may have had that night?
A. Mr. Rene is not an emotional man. He is the calmest man I have ever seen in my life.
Q. Even if there was something unusual you would not have seen it?
A. Yes.
Q. He would make a good poker player?
A. Probably yes, he would make a good many things.
Q. Was there anything he said or did that night which would show he was at all disturbed?
A. Not at all.
Q. So far as you are aware he showed no amazement or surprise at the bomb explosions?
A. He told me he had no idea of what had happened. He told me he had just heard.
Q. Did he show any amazement or surprise to you?
A. He showed no feelings.
Q. Amongst other things he showed no amazement or surprise?
A. No. Not even when I told him something.
Q. He showed no regret or disgust at the bomb explosion?
A. He showed disgust in the sense that when I told him“My God tonight of all nights when Guy Sinon arrives and they’re going to pin it down on him (Sinon)”.
Q. You think Mr. Sinon had anything to do with it?
A. Certainly not but somebody had told me that Mr. Sinon had gone to England to learn how to make bombs.
Q. Who was it?
A. Mr. Philip Moulinie. He showed me a photograph of Mr. Sinon with all sorts of tubes in that photograph. I believed when he showed me the photograph he could have been somewhere where they made bombs.
Q. At that time you thought Guy Sinon might have placed the bombs?
A. It was years ago. Mr. Moulinie had told me so some time back that Mr. Sinon had gone to England to learn how to make bombs. Then he showed me the photograph. I asked him how Mr. Sinon could have sent him the photograph and he said the postman had stolen it from S.P.U.P.’s box. I reported it to Mr. Joubert. The other person who was there asked him how he got the photograph. He said he had got it from SP.U.P.’s box and that he paid a postman Rs.25/- per month to take some letters from S.P.U.P. box. Mr. Rene is the leader of S.P.U.P. I wish to clarify the evidence I have made. Mrs. Karl Reder was with me when we went to Bel Ombre one day and we saw Mr. Philip Moulinie. We went to his place and he started talking politics. He told us something. As a result of what he told us he went inside and brought out a photograph which he told us he was going to use just before the elections to show people how dangerous S.P.U.P. can be by the fact that he had the proof that Mr. Guy Sinon had gone to England to learn to make bombs and he showed us the photograph. Mrs. Reder asked him “but how would Guy Sinon let you have such a photograph”. He said a postman gives us some S.P.U.P. mail and Mrs. Delhomme’s mail for that matter. My friend asked him “but would a postman do that” and he said “oh I give him Rs.25/- and everybody will do anything for me”. I have said to clarify what I said earlier before the court adjourned.
Q. You don’t like Mr. Philip Moulinie?
A. I have very good reason not to like him. I liked him very much that day when I went to him but not after that. It was before the elections. I would not remember the date.
Q. Is that before you started associating with Mr. Rene?
A. I’ve known Mr. Rene since he was in the cot. I’ve known him during the years we went to school.
Q. Is that before you started living with him as man and wife?
Mr.Valabhji: I object to this question.
Court: I rule it is admissible on credibility.
Witness:
Q. Are you living as man and wife with Albert Rene?
A. Yes. I will not lie in court. If the court asks me to tell the truth I will tell the truth.
Q. At the time you had this conversation with Mr. Moulinie had you started associating with Albert Rene as man and wife?
A. Never I did not even tell Albert Rene about that.
Q. At that time were you aligned to any particular political party?
A. Yes I was democrat. This is what disgusted me. I reported the matter to Mr. Joubert. I was shaken, could not believe my ears, made some discreet inquiries with the post office, found the postman who told me something. As a result I reported to Mr. Joubert what Mr. Moulinie had said to us. I did not believe that Mr. Joubert or Mr. Mancham or Mr. Chetty had anything to do with it. They were too honest to have anything to do with that kind of things. It was entirely Mr. Moulinie if there was any truth in it.
I believe that Mr.Mancham would never do these things i.e. pay postmen to steal mail, nor Mr. Joubert or Mr. Chetty. I never believed Mr. Moulinie could have done it but he told me so himself. I reported to Mr. Joubert because I did not want to report it to the police. I did not believe that he could have done it. Mr. Joubert assured me that it was not true. I believed Mr. Joubert that he did not know anything about it and I also warned Mrs. Delhomme to be careful of the mail.
Q. At that stage you were pro S.D.P.?
A. Rather, I had a lot of common with Mr. Joubert over a question of education.
Q. Could you be described at that time to be a floating voter?
A. Rather, I would not have voted for any party I did not believe in. I was studying matters.
Q. Are you inclined towards S.P.U.P. today?
A. I am in sympathy with S.P.U.P.
Q. Were you in sympathy with S.P.U.P. in February, 1972?
A. I was.
Q. Have you discussed this case against Guy Pool with anyone?
A. I discuss at school in the staff room what I hear over the radio the night before.
Q. Has anyone else spoken to you about this case?
A. People at work and people at home when we listen to the radio.
Q. Anyone ?
A. Perhaps people I know when we discuss this case.
Q. Have you discussed it with prior witness in this case?
A. I’ve talked about it with Mr. Rene.
Q. It is an important case to Mr. Rene?
A. It is.
Q. Mr. Rene is an important man to you?
A. He is.
Q. Have you seen a note of his evidence in the bulletin?
A. I was reading it this morning when I got a phone call to come to court. I’ve heard it over the radio.
Q. As a result of having listened to the radio, read the newspaper, and speaking to Mr. Rene, you know what Mr. Rene’s evidence was in this case?
A. Word for word I cannot remember. I’ve heard something about speeches he made and naturally the question about me.
Q. This is an important case to you as well as Mr. Rene?
A. Correct.
Q. You would like to see accused acquitted?
A. If he is innocent I would like him acquitted.
Q. Do you think he is innocent?
A. I’m a teacher, I can’t say yes or no. I know the consequences of yes or no. I think he is innocent. I believe that Guy Pool is innocent.
Q. When I asked you earlier on if you had discussed this case you answered “which case, the case against Guy Pool, Harry Bonte or Mr. Rene” and you said that first it looked as though there would be a case against Mr. Rene?
A. That’s right.
Q. When was it that you first thought there would be a case against Mr. Rene?
A. I was the first one to know.
Q. How?
A. One morning I found a little note in my car which told me that Mr. Rene and some other politicians were going to be arrested in connection with the bomb explosion and that my house would be searched that night. In the afternoon I got a ‘phone call asking me if I had received the note and to be careful to tell my brother John Adam and myself to watch our place because explosives would be put there before the search. The person told me she would keep me informed. It was a woman’s voice. The next day or the day after she phoned she told me that an arrest warrant had been brought to His Lordship to arrest Mr. Rene and he refused to sign it, that there had been a big meeting at 4 a.m. at the police station to plan the arrest of Mr. Rene.
Q. Is it correct that you received the note of 1st August, 1972?
A. I can’t be sure of the date. I received the note on the morning that my house was searched.
Q. It would be true that Mr. Rene and yourself had prior warning that your house would be searched?
A. Yes but he told me it was rubbish.
Q. It would be surprising if anything incriminating were found in such circumstances?
A. It would be surprising if I kept explosives in my house in any case.
Q. Mr. Rene had access to your house?
A. Of course he had. He had dinner there every day.
Q. In fact nothing was found when the house was searched?
A. No, they lifted carpets and everything. They nearly removed the roof. Nothing was found. Mr. Ashford himself was there and the dog. The police was efficient at the search.
Q. What did you do during the adjournment?
A. I sat on the verandah and I was completely dumb. I did not speak. Mr. Jumeau asked me how I felt and I said “don’t speak to me”. Nothing else happened. Some women were talking but I never answered anything.
Q. Was any document given to you before this case started this morning?
A. No.
Q. Think carefully and remember that you are on oath: this morning before you gave evidence was any piece of paper or document passed on to you?
A. No.
Q. I put it to you that at 8.30 or thereabout this morning a document which to be an airmail letter was handed to you?
A. Yes, I’ve got it in my handbag, I can produce it. I concluded you had been asking me about a document relating to the case. I was given the document by Mr. Karl St. Ange. It is an air letter.
Q. Are you equally as forgetful about other parts of your evidence?
A. I’m a teacher, I’m very precise. I would be grateful if questions put to me were clear. My whole mind is in the case now.
Q. You agree that when you said you received no document this morning your statement was incorrect?
A. I meant that I received nothing relating to this case. I did not know I was coming to court this morning.
Q. When did you first know?
A. On the first day Mr. Kapila arrived in Seychelleshe drove home with Mr. Rene and as I was serving them a drink Mr. Rene told me “do you know that Guy Pool has said that I made bombs at Plaisance and gave him the bomb to put”. I said in the presence of Mr. Kapila “this is impossible because I was in the house that night”. We discussed it.
Q. With Mr. Kapila?
A. I discussed this issue with Mr. Kapila, the fact that I was in the house. That was when Mr. Kapila asked me whether I would be prepared to be a witness. Since August I knew I would be called as defence witness in this case. I didn’t expect it would be this morning. I had to rush to my dress maker to change and borrowed a hat from the college.
Q. When I asked you with whom you had discussed this case you did not mention Mr. Kapila’s name?
A. I did not remember Mr. Kapila. I thought you meant the general public.
Q. You’ve said that Mr. Rene was driving yourself and Mr. Kapila home?
A. I said Mr. Rene drove Mr. Kapila home. I did not say myself. I was at l’Exile.
Q. You do not regard Plaisance as home?
A. No.
Q. How many entrances are there to the house at Plaisance?
A. There is one in the front which leads to the sitting/dinning room. There’s another to the kitchen at the back of the house. There are windows through which people can break through.
Q. How many keys are there to the front door?
A. I don’t know. I believe there are 2. One with the maid and one with Mr. Rene. I’m not sure whether there are anymore.
Q. You agree Mr. Rene may have had more than 1 key to the front door?
A. I don’t know.
Q. How many keys are there to the kitchen door?
A. I do not know.
Q. You would not know in whose possession those keys were that evening?
A. I do.
Q. You are changing your evidence?
A. I’m not.
Q. You have just said you do not know how many keys there are to the kitchen door?
A. I do not know how many keys there are to the kitchen door.
Q. It would be true to say you do know in whose possession the keys to the kitchen door were?
A. I don’t know where they were or who had them. The kitchen was locked.
Q. Why did you not sleep at l’Exile?
A. Because I wanted to sleep there. Because my children had gone to the cinema and Mr. Rene had borrowed my car. I’ve slept there a dozen times before and after.
Q. You said your children had a taxi from the cinema to Plaisance. There was nothing to prevent you from taking the taxi to l’Exile?
A. Pay a taxi to l’Exile when I have a house where I can go to. By that I don’t mean my house but a house where I can go to.
Q. Would you agree that if you had slept at l’Exile that night Mr. Rene would not have been able to produce any one to show that he did not go to Plaisance?
A. That would have been his business. Maybe Almighty God had seen the wicked plots and decided he should bring about a little evidence and I’m trying to provide just this. I had slept there before and after.
Q. Would you agree that for Mr. Rene’s sake and for accused’s sake in this case it was an extremely fortuitous happening that you should have slept at Plaisance that night?
A. As I’ve said perhaps it’s Divine Justice.
Q. Who owns the house at l’Exile?
A. Mr. Rene.
Q. He also had the house at Plaisance?
A. That’s correct. The house at Plaisance he has now sub-blet. He is a lessee of the house at Plaisance. He owns the house at l’Exile.
Q. When did you last stay at the house at Plaisance?
A. Since he has sub-let it I have slept there once with the present tenants. It was the last party at the college which finished very late. It was the end of the term.
Q. Sometime in July?
A. I would not be sure. Perhaps July or August. No not July, definitely not July. Mr. Rene was in England. I can’t remember I think it was May or June.
Q. What clothes was Mr. Rene wearing when you left the house to him on the morning of 14th February?
A. Obviously the same clothes he was wearing when he left. I would not know but possible a red shirt. He always wears a red shirt when he goes to political functions.
Q. Are you saying what Mr. Rene said in evidence?
A. No I’m saying what I remember. I said he could have been wearing a red shirt as he usually does for political functions.
Q. On that afternoon 13th Mr. Rene drove to the airport to meet Mr. Servina and Mr. Sinon?
A. That’s what he told me.
Q. Do you believe there’s always a discrepancy in what he tells you and what he does?
A. I believe him utterly. That was for the sake of this court.
Q. Would you agree that to the best of your knowledge he went to the airport to meet Mr. Sinon and Mr. Servina?
A. I have every reason to believe so.
Q. Whilst he was away at the airport where were you?
A. At his house at Plaisance. I stayed there while he went to the airport.
Q. When did you see him again?
A. After the airport he picked me from his house at Plaisance.
Q. Can you explain this sentence in Mr. Rene’s evidence to the court? “from the airport I drove back to my house at l’Exile, picked up Geva, drove down to S.P.U.P. office and she went on in the car”.
A. This is not correct. (asked to have the whole text read out. Mr. Grimmett passes on his typed script to witness. She reads it out). This is a mistake. If you read the context it implies that he left me at Plaisance how could he have picked me up at L’Exile. He made a mistake. He does sometime. I had no car to go back to l’Exile.
Q. If Mr. Rene said he picked you up at l’Exile either he or you is lying?
A. Mr. Rene is not lying. He made a mistake. I am telling the truth.
By Court: I remained at Plaisance from 2 until Mr. Rene came back from the airport i.e. about 4.30. Then I drove to l’Exile to pick up my kids in my car. I returned to SP.U.P. office where I dropped my children to go to the cinema and waited for Mr. Rene.
By Mr. Grimmett:
Q. I put it to you that it would have been possible for Mr. Rene to have returned to the house at Plaisance before the occasion of his return at 2 a.m. without your knowing?
Q. I put it to you that you are either lying when you said that you stayed the night at the house at Plaisance on 13th February, 1972 or if you did stay there you are lying when you say that Mr.Rene did not return before 2 a.m.
A. I am not lying. I’m under oath before this court. I have not lied over things which could have had great consequences on me, I would not lie over things which do not concern me. I would not lie and involve my children. I would invite my lord to call my children and question them himself. I would not lie concerning my children. I would not be able to bring them up anymore. I would not be able to tell them what’s right or wrong. My children come first before any man. If I wanted to lie I could have said that I slept at Plaisance alone.
Q. When you said you would not lie on matters concerning your children does that mean you would lie on other matters?
A. Not under oath. I would lie outside the court.
Q. I put it to you that you are lying in court for the sake of Albert Rene?
A. I would not lie for any man when my children are at stake. Albert Rene is not in trouble, I don’t think so, if he was he would have been arrested with the others.
Q. It is you who mentioned your children no one else?
A. That’s right, they would find it strange that I did not mention them, they would ask me why I had not when they were there.
Q. You wanted to say why accused is innocent?
A. Why I think he is innocent. I happen to know the bomb was not made in the house that night so I believe that this part is untrue and the rest could be untrue (2) I have been following that case, I have come to the conclusion in my assessment of Guy Pool that he is a very intelligent man judging by the way he has lived through this xxtion and insisted throughout what he always said from the beginning when he was not a suspect. I believe that when you are speaking the truth you have an image of what happened and you can’t go wrong no matter how people can twist and turn you and use ambiguous questions to put you in a trap. On the other hand if you are telling lies you are bound to fall into the trap (3) I believe Guy Pool is an extremely intelligent man and his teachers told me so and an intelligent man would not have gone if he was guilty into a long story of Bay Lazare, where he knew could be easily checked on that very day before he had any contacts. When he could very well have said “I was at Chez Nous and from there I did not feel well and went home”.
Q. You were questioned about an air letter which was passed on to you this morning?
A. I was.
Q. Has the air letter have anything to do with this case?
A. No I would beg my Lord to have a look at it.
Q. How far is l’Exile from Plaisance?
A. It would take me about 15 minutes by car. L’Exile is in the national forest up there.
Q. You said you lived as man and wife with Mr. Rene?
A. I was told that I was living with him as man and wife. To me a man and wife require all the formalities which we have not gone through yet. Mr. Rene has not obtained his divorce yet. If you mean as husband and wife, I’m not sleeping in his bed. I have my room and he has his. We have some measures of intimacy between us which I believe is common in
No further questions.
Witness: I would like the court to call my children.
Court: This is a matter for the defence counsel.
Witness released.
P.W.13 Esme Jumeau (sworn)
Jean Esme Jumeau, Engineering contractor. I live at Bel Ombre. I remember Sunday 13th February, 1972. I went to a party at Chez Nous in the evening. It was a party organised by Mrs. Frichot on the occasion of the arrival of Mr. Sinon and Mr. Servina from overseas. I arrived at Chez Nous at 7.30. The party was by invitation. There was quite a number of guests there.
I saw Mr. Albert Rene there, I met him there. There I saw Mr. Karl St.Ange, Mr. Sinon and Mr. Servina of course my wife and I occupied the table together with Mr. & Mrs. Frichot and Mr. and Mrs. Wong. Mr. Albert Rene was at a table next to us sitting with Mr. Servina and Mr. Sinon, that is a separate table. Mrs. Servina and Mrs. Sinon were there.
We left just after 9. Between 7.30 and 9 I saw Rene. I don’t think he left. If he did it must have been for just a few seconds. I left before Mr. Rene. I should say there were about 30 people there at that party.
xxd by A.G.
Q. You are a member of S.P.U.P.?
A. I was a candidate for the last general elections.
Q. You are still a member?
A. I am a sympathiser. I do not hold a membership card.
Q. How long have you sympathy for the party?
A. Before the elections.
Q. Before 1970?
A. Yes.
Q. You still have sympathy?
A. Yes.
Q. You support it whole heartedly?
A. By sympathy I don’t mean whole heartedly. I support what is right and reject what is wrong.
Q. What is wrong that you don’t support?
A. Independence.
Q. Apart from that you sympathies with them?
A. I do.
Q. Among these 30 people that you