FORMER Transport Min-ister Jearlean John accepted apologies yesterday from NIPDEC’s attorney for statements by the company’s officials which she claimed had damaged her reputation and caused her to get depressed and ill.

The apologies were made   by Christopher Hamel-Smith when he questioned John yesterday at the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport Project. Hamel-Smith is leading Jonathon Walker. The apology came at the end of Hamel-Smith’s questioning. He asked John if it was fair to say that she was very hurt and stressed by NIPDEC General Manager Margaret Thom-pson’s suggestion that the date for the opening of the airport was chosen to coincide with the birthday of  then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday. John replied yes. John was also asked if it was fair to say that she was also hurt and upset by the suggestion from NIPDEC Project Manager Kenneth Critchlow that she had arranged for air handlers to be moved from an upstairs location in the airport, to the downstairs location of the Pizza Boys outlet. She agreed, pointing out that it damaged her reputation and made her depressed and sick.

She later asked if Hamel-Smith was offering an apology. She said if it was allowed she would accept it because she didn’t expect such statements to be made by Thompson and Critchlow. John said she thought they were decent people. Hamel-Smith told John he was instructed that at no time was NIPDEC aware that the opening had to do with Panday’s birthday. He said NIPDEC was also unaware of a letter from BWIA’s Chief Executive Officer Conrad Aleong stating that the cut off date for the opening was May 26, because its peak season was at the beginning of June. Hamel-Smith said in the circumstances that “yes, we apologise to you for the insinuation otherwise”.

Earlier, Hamel-Smith spent time questioning John to show that before her arrival on the project, under the Inter-ministerial Committee chaired by then Housing Minister John Humphrey, things were very different on the project. She agreed, noting that with her approach there were high levels of savings. Hamel-Smith showed John instances of NIPDEC advising both BHC and Peter Cateau, the client representative, about the costs and delays associated with circumventing fuel lines rather than using the jack and bore method, and of BHC’s and Cateau’s disregard of that advice. John agreed that BHC and Cateau “poured cold water” on NIPDEC’s advice and while she admitted that Critchlow would have had a difficult time, she insisted that he could have called Cateau and complained. John will return next Monday to be questioned by Cateau’s attorney Keith Scotland.

JUST HOURS after he made a daring escape from his kidnappers yesterday, Selwyn Simmons opted to go home to his family instead of being placed in police protection.

Simmons told police he was severely beaten by his kidnappers. They also threatened to kill him if he did not take them to the remaining amount of money from last year’s $5 million Securicor robbery. Blindfolded, bound and gagged, the 35-year-old father of four was able to dodge bullets fired at him by the seven masked kidnappers. He managed to escape somewhere in the forests of Brasso  in Tabaquite where he hid in the bushes. At the first sign of daybreak, Simmons walked some three miles before he emerged at Brasso Main Road around 7.15 am and was picked up by a motorist who took him to his home at Torrib Tabaquite Road, Tableland.

Simmons spent most of yesterday being interviewed by the police and was treated at the Accident and Emergency Department of the San Fernando General Hospital.  Investigators said he sustained head and chest injuries and bruises about his body and both wrists. In a statement to police, Simmons, who was dragged out of his bedroom by two armed men on Sunday night,  said he was blindfolded and his hands tied with pieces of cloth. He said he believed his abductors took him to a place near a farm because he was hearing the mooing of cows.

He said he was forced to kneel and was beaten with gun butts on his head. Simmons also told police the men kept asking him where the money from the Securicor robbery was buried. He was again beaten when he denied knowing where the money was hidden. Eventually, in fear for his life, he lied and agreed to take the men to where the money was buried. Sometime later, he said the men led him out of the house and into the forest.

Simmons said when they took off the blindfold he was in the middle of the forest, and while walking he managed to escape from the men who were wearing dark clothing, masks and were armed with AK45 rifles. Simmons said the men opened fire at him, he ducked for cover and eventually hid in some bushes. When Newsday contacted family members yesterday, a relative identified only as Roshan, said Simmons was still being treated at the hospital and had not yet spoken to relatives about what had  transpired. Investigators said Simmons told them he did not know anything about the $5 million robbery, neither did he know who were his kidnappers. The Anti-Kidnapping Squad, Southern Division and Tableland Police are continuing investigations.

LONDON: Britain’s House of Commons supported Prime Minister Tony Blair’s policy on Iraq yesterday by defeating a motion opposing military action against Saddam Hussein.

But many rebel legislators in Blair’s own Labor Party voted against his Iraq policy — which prompted three ministers to resign this week – showing that opposition to his pro-war remains strong. With a US-led war appearing increasingly inevitable, legislators voted 396 to 217 to defeat a parliamentary amendment by Labor Party rebels that declared the case for war “has not yet been established.” The 217 votes included about 135 Labor Party backbenchers, reports said. Last month, a similar parliamentary showdown regarding Iraq and its weapons saw 122 Labor lawmakers vote against the government, the biggest revolt since the party came to power in 1997. “Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects,” Blair said Thursday, during hours of Commons debate about Iraq before the vote.

In a second vote last night, legislators voted 412 to 149 to approve the government’s resolution supporting the use of “all means necessary” to ensure Iraq’s disarmament. In Britain, where public and legislative opposition to a war without U.N. approval is strong, an invasion could present Blair’s government with serious risks, especially if the hundreds of thousands of US and British forces in the Gulf aren’t successful. In yesterday’s Commons debate, Blair said the Iraq crisis would determine the shape of international politics for a generation. “Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects,” he said.  Blair said far more was at stake than disarming Saddam — the fundamental framework of international relations was being re-examined. “It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the United Nations; the relationship between Europe and the United States; the relations within the European Union; and the way that the United States engages with the rest of the world. “So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation,” Blair said.

 Many disaffected Labor Party legislators have ignored party discipline and opposed Blair’s handling of the crisis. Already, senior Cabinet minister Robin Cook and two other officials — junior Health Minister Lord Hunt and Home Office Minister John Denham – have quit over Iraq. But Blair had been expected to win Tuesday’s votes because he has the support of the opposition Conservative Party as well as many Labor lawmakers. There also have been signs of growing nationalism in Britain in support of the British troops massed in the Persian Gulf. During yesterday’s debate, Labor lawmaker Peter Kilfoyle joined many other members of his party in arguing that military action against Saddam would be “illegal, immoral and illogical.” But Blair said that to back away from conflict now, “would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the U.N. back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East, leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better. “I would not be party to such a course,” he said.

Blair’s defenders in the Commons debate included an old foe, former Conservative Party leader William Hague. In his speech, Hague said a war with Iraq was in Britain’s national interest, and he praised the prime minister for sustaining the country’s close ties with Washington. “The reason why the United States takes on so many responsibilities in the world is because others shirk those responsibilities,” Hague said. “Those who will not venture out when there is a criminal coming down the street should not complain when somebody else acts as the policeman.” Hague said Europe must differ with the United States from time to time but never forget the important roles it has played on the world stage, especially in saving Europe from Naziism and communism. Hitting out at France, Hague said that during the UN Security Council debate about Iraq there was “a hint of appeasement” similar to that of World War II among countries who oppose fighting Saddam.

FORMER President Arthur NR Robinson will leave President’s House today. However, he will not be going to his private residence at Ellerslie Park, St Clair. The Robinsons will be moving to an undisclosed location until renovation work is completed on their St Clair house.

The new President George Maxwell Richards will not move into President’s House right away. He will remain at his private residence at Maracas/St Joseph, until next week to allow the staff to carry out cleaning up operations at President’s House. When Newsday visited Robinson’s private residence at St Clair yesterday, workers were busy putting the final touches on the building. Employees of ABC Construction Limited were contracted months ago to carry out extensive renovations to the house which Robinson vacated in 1997 when he was sworn in as the country’s third President. The workers were busy painting the various rooms in the house when Newsday visited. Even the wall around the premises has been elevated. However, there is a lot of work to be done to the yard and swimming pool. According to reports, work at the Robinsons’ home is expected to take another two to three weeks.

Newsday was informed that Richards was prepared to accommodate the Robinsons for as long as it took but Robinson was anxious to leave President’s House – well aware that it was a State facility and he was no longer President. Richards and his family will remain in the main house for at least three months while renovation work is done on the cottage at the back. When the cottage is completed, the Richards will move into that building to allow extensive renovation to be carried out on the main house. This, according to reports, will take at least two years at a considerable cost.

The main house is in a dilapidated condition, Newsday was informed. The majority of the facility, including the flooring has to be replaced and this will take a long time to be completed. Meanwhile, President Richards spent his first official day in office yesterday attending to administrative matters and meeting with staff. The only new member of staff is Lt Commander Hiram Mohammed, the President’s Aide-de-Camp. The rest of the staff is still at President’s House. Robinson’s Aide-De-Camp, Major Anthony Phillip-Spencer is expected to go on two weeks’ leave before he is re-assigned to military duties in the Defence Force. There are several members of staff who were brought in during Robinson’s term. However, no one could say if these persons will be retained by the new President or will have to quit. Newsday was told several changes will be made to the President’s staff.

A MENTALLY unstable man who killed  a 23-year-old  store clerk over a defective pen was yesterday described as a “menace to society” and sent  to St Ann’s Mental Hospital at the President’s pleasure. Barry Clarke’s lawyer Sophia Chote, reflecting on his mental history, said it was a “tragedy how society treated  mentally ill persons”.

Clarke, 47, was charged with the murder of Summer Charles but was found guilty of manslaughter by the 12-member jury as a result of his mental illness.  Because of the  jury’s finding, trial judge Justice Prakash Moosai was obliged to send Clarke for treatment at St Ann’s Hospital.  But before doing so, Justice  Moosai expressed concern that something was not done before to treat the abnormality of Clarke’s mind and  protect society from him after he committed his first crime. In 1996 Clarke was freed of murdering a man following a no-case submission on  the grounds of self-defence. Before that, he was charged with stabbing another person.

Yesterday the jury found him guilty of the unlawful killing of Charles on  November 1, 1999 at Emdad’s Variety Store on Charlotte Street, Port-of-Spain. State prosecutor Cheron Raphael told the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court that Clarke should be sent to St Ann’s Mental Hospital where he could get treatment and society will be protected from him. Chote, instructed by attorney Shastri Roberts, agreed with this recommendation. However, Chote suggested that if at the start  things had been handled differently, Charles would not have had to pay with her life because of her client’s illness. “Its an indictment on all of us on how we treat mentally ill persons,” she said.

Following Clarke’s  arrest  in 1996 he was ordered to  St Ann’s to be examined to see if he was fit  to answer his charge of murder. Unfortunately, observed Chote, “the matter ended there”. Justice Moosai wondered why some sort of a case history was not taken at that time to evaluate Clarke’s “position.” Clarke, who  has a history of mental illness, had been diagnosed as a  paranoid schizophrenic.

SOME 2,500 sugar workers have signed a petition in support of legal proceedings being filed by former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj to put a hold on the Voluntary Separation Employment Package (VSEP) before the April 3 deadline.

Maharaj, political leader of National Team Unity, revealed this yesterday when he addressed a handful of mostly daily paid workers at the Field Engineering Brechin Castle Car Park, in Couva. He said this was half the amount of names needed to file legal proceedings. “I have already drafted the legal proceedings. Some way has to be found to stop the VSEP but I have a problem and the problem is this  — the function of the union. I do not want to get into a fight with anybody but I have a duty to the sugar workers,” Maharaj said. “If the union does not come forward and join in this legal battle we are going to file the proceedings if the sugar workers show their support in a petition signed by more than half of the sugar workers which is about 5,000.”

Maharaj said the manner in which Government was handling the Caroni VSEP was totally unlawful. He said the Government had shown contempt for the rights of workers and based on what Agriculture Minister John Rahael has said a decision has already been taken to close down Caroni. He said the VSEP was not a voluntary package but a means of putting the sugar workers under duress. Maharaj said the Government has not given any guarantees to workers on future employment, or the extent of pension benefits and the criteria to acquire the agricultural lands they had been promised. Maharaj accused the Government of trying to hoodwink the sugar workers to get rid of them. Some 9,000 sugar workers have been offered VSEP and so far 2,500 have accepted.

IN February 2001, both Dhanraj Singh and Elliott Hypolite were charged with the same offence — the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh.

However, following a statement taken from Hypolite in the dead of night – from 9.50 pm to 12.50 am —Dhanraj, the former Local Government minister, became the lone accused in the case. This was revealed late yesterday during rigid cross-examination by lead defence counsel, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, of the complainant, Sgt Fitzgerald George. George returns to the witness stand 9 am today to be further cross-examined by Hudson-Phillips. Most of yesterday – from 9.30 am to 2.30 pm, with a 45-minute lunch break — was taken up with legal arguments by Hudson-Phillips for the defence and Sir Timothy Cassel QC for the prosecution on the admissibility of a letter said to be from the deceased, Hansraj Sumairsingh. The trial judge, Justice Melville Baird, will rule on the issue sometime later.

The jury did not return to the courtroom until 2.42 pm yesterday when Sgt George was recalled to the witness stand to be cross-examined.
Hudson-Phillips launched out: Now, Sgt George I will ask you certain questions and I want you to answer as direct as possible. You need not have any fear of me. I want to ask you about your visit to the scene of this crime sometime on the afternoon of December 31, 1999; was it about  four o’ clock?
GEORGE: It was sometime after 4 pm.
Further questioned, witness said when he arrived he observed a door to the kitchen of the premises, the lock on it was broken.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You saw no blood on the outside of that door? — No sir.
Apart from the kitchen door you saw another door which was closed ? — Yes it was closed from the inside.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So we have two doors, one closed from the inside, and the other at the kitchen with its lock broken ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You went into the kitchen, you saw no blood in the kitchen ?
GEORGE: I saw stains resembling blood on the walls of the kitchen.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; And the scrapings from those stains were negative ?
GEORGE: Yes, according to the scientific officer.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Are you challenging the scientific office ? — No sir.
You saw blood in the bedroom, on a bed ? — Yes sir.
And on that bed there was a plastic of some sort with blood ? — Yes.
So on both items you saw there were stains resembling blood ? —Yes.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; The analysis indicated it was in fact blood ? — Yes sir.
It was of the same type of the deceased ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; So it would be safe to assume that the deceased was bleeding when he went into that bedroom ? — Probably
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; You also took some samples from the earth outside ?  — Yes.
Those were negative on the analysis ? — Yes sir.
 Why did you send samples of earth for analysis ? — Because I had information.

Justice Baird interjected:  But this is hearsay.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Where did you take the samples of earth from ?

GEORGE: From the yard of the beach house.
And you sent them as samples of blood ?  – No sir
For urine ? — No sir.
For what ? — It was submitted for comparison of stains from a motor vehicle.
You had information that a vehicle was in the yard ? — No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You had a PC O’Connor who was a fingerprint expert on the scene ? — Yes sir.
Is he a witness in this matter ?
GEORGE:  I do not know if he would be called.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Did you cite him ? — I do not recall
Has he given a statement ? — Yes
He identified, in your presence certain impressions inside the premises ? — Yes sir.
Any other areas you saw him testing and whatever ? — Yes sir.
And he left several markings inside the premises ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You saw a 929 motor vehicle in the yard ? — Yes sir.
You saw the door open ? — Not when I arrived.
The music was still playing ? – Yes.
The key was in the ignition ? — I cannot recall.
Did you take possession of that car at all ? — No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Shortly after visiting the scene within a couple of days you got a statement from a witness called Watson ? — Yes sir.
Also one from her husband, a Mr Ochoa ? — Yes sir.
The husband gave you certain registration numbers of a motor car ? — Yes.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; You got a certificate of ownership matching that number ? — yes.
Do you have it with you ?- I should think so.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Can you show me ? — Yes sir (witness looks through his file).
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: How many certificates of ownership did you get? Two sir.
May I see them please? (Witness then hands certificates to the court).
HUDSON-PHILLIPS (After examining certificates queried) But you took nine months to go and get these certificates of ownership? — Yes sir. I got information from a Licensing Officer prior to obtaining the certificates.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Now, the situation of this place where you saw the body of the deceased, there were several houses around ? — Yes sir.
These houses are inhabited, you know, people living in them ? Yes, but not all of them.
But in several there are people living there ? — Yes sir
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: During the course of your inquiries, during the early part of the year 2000 you interviewed several persons apart from this accused ? — Yes sir.
You interviewed about ten persons? — It could have been.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: As suspects in the killing ? — Yes sir.
 HUDSON-PHILLIPS: In January of 2000 you detained the following persons as suspects, including — Roger Bridgeman, also called Black Roger, Mohammed Aleem, Leslie Ottley, Dave Fraser, and Elliott Hypolite?
GEORGE: Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Who were the other persons you detained. ? — They were the persons detained.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Sometime a little later you interviewed and got statements from various persons ? — Yes sir.
In March, 2000, you got a statement from a man called Fazal Ali, also known as Ted? — Yes.
As a result of what he told you, did you go and interview anybody? — Yes sir.
Were those  persons among those whose names I just called? — Yes sir.
Apart from Fazal Ali, also called Ted, you also recorded a statement from Gopaul Ramkeesoon on March 24? — I did not personally take that interview.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; I take it, as the complainant in this matter you know of all the inquiries in this matter? — I think so.
So you received a statement on March 24 from Gopaul Ramkeesoon ? — Yes sir.
In April you got a statement from Rodney Lutchman, also called Abdool Karim ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: All those were members of the Jamaat al Muslimeen ?
GEORGE: Except Gopaul Ramkeesoon.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Fazal Ali was a member; what about Lutchman?
GEORGE: I know he practised at Enterprise.
What about Hypolite ? I knew he was a member of the Jamaat.
Under further cross-examination witness said he also received a statement from a man called Marcano.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: As a result of your inquiries you received information about certain motor vehicles ? — Yes sir.
And you had a motor vehicle seized ? — Yes sir.
Where is it today ? — At the Rio Claro Police Station.
You had information with respect to this motor vehicle which was taken from the place of the man Lutchman, or was it removed ?
GEORGE: I had information from Gopaul Ramkeesoon.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: He gave you certain information about that vehicle ? — Yes sir.
Following that, witness said he spoke to Fazal Ali. HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Do you recall that sometime in January or February, 2001, a picture of a motor vehicle on the Mirror ?
GEORGE: A sort of motor vehicle.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: It was a red vehicle – a 323 ? — I think so.
That motor vehicle which you said was at Rio Claro Police Station, is it still there? — Yes sir.
You examined it for its chassis number ?—Yes.
You got a certificate in respect of it? — Yes sir.
And you have that certificate in your possession ? — I am not sure, sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Well, would you like to check, Mr George?
After searching his file for the certificate, George responded “No sir, I don’t have it in my possession. He further explained that a certified copy was received from the original owner, and that the original was tendered elsewhere.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Oh well, that was tendered in the prosecution of Hypolite ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Well tell us. So in the prosecution of Hypolite a certified vehicle ownership certificate was tendered in court? — Yes.
So by November, 2000 you had statements of certain activities by certain people? — Yes.
In short, you had information since March 24 concerning the man Hypolite ? — yes.
You had information on the man Fazal Ali also called Ted ? — Yes.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; No charge was brought against Hypolite until some six months later ?
WITNESS: Yes.
Is that so ? — In November, 2000.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS:The same persons who gave you information were also cited in that matter to give evidence ? — Yes.
The man Fazal Ali, was he cited ? — Yes sir.
Asked if he had recorded another statement from Fazal Ali in November, 2000, witness responded “one was recorded.”
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: After Hypolite was charged? — I don’t think so.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Well let me put it to you. You did know of Inspector Khan recorded a statement from Ali in November, 2000? — Yes sir.
That would have been after Hypolite was charged ? — No sir.
Hypolite was charged on November 13, the day after ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPSL; You got Fazal Ali to swear to a statutory declaration in support of the statement ? — Yes sir.
You did not charge Ali ? — No sir.
So how come you made him swear to a statutory declaration ?
GEORGE: There was a reason for making him swear to a declaration — to satisfy myself that his statement was correct.
What was the date he swore to the declaration ? — I am not sure.
Would you swear it was November 14, 2000 ? — I am not sure.
But in any event you sought to make sure of the evidence of Fazal Ali ? — Yes sir.
He had given to you an earlier statement in March of the same year? — Yes sir.
You did not require him to swear to a statutory declaration with respect to that statement ?
GEORGE: It was not done, sir.
 HUDSON-PHILLIPS; And Fazal Ali has not been cited as a witness in this matter ? — No sir.
His evidence in your view was relevant to the charge against Hypolite? — Yes sir.
It was not relevant to the charge in this matter ? — No sir
As a result of the information from Fazad Ali you formed a certain view which you believed, is that so? — It depends on what that view is.
Was it not as a result of that statement you charged Hypolite? — That, among other things.
But the evidence you had from Fazal Ali you charged Hypolite? — Yes sir.
At this juncture Sir Timothy objected to the line of cross-examination about whether the witness believed. He said it was totally irrelevant. The objection was upheld by the judge.
Hudson-Phillips then hinted that he would have to make serious comments, since he felt it was relevant to the  case for the accused, as to whether this officer charged someone else on the identical evidence which he believed.
Hudson-Phillips resuming, enquired: On the basis of evidence from Ali you charged Hypolite?
GEORGE: Yes sir.
You would not charge someone on evidence you did not believe? — No sir.
So you had information from the man Fazal Ali who gives you a statutory declaration with the statement attached, and partly on the basis of that you charged Hypolite? — Yes sir.
You cited Fazal Ali on the basis of which you charged Hypolite ? — Yes.
But Fazal Ali is not a witness in this case ? — No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Let us go piece by piece again Mr George. You cited a man called Gopaul Ramkeesoon in the case of Hypolite  — Yes sir.
He is not a witness in this matter ? — Not so far as I know.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: The man Rodney Lutchman, also called Abdool Karim, you cited him in the matter of Hypolite ? — No sir
And of course he is not a witness in this matter ? — No sir.
In November, 2000 you charged Hypolite with the murder of Sumairsingh ? — Yes sir.
At that time you had no statement from Hypolite ? — No.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: At the time you charged Hypolite you had in your possession all the evidence which you used to charge this accused person, except Hypolite statement ? — Yes sir.
So that it is on the basis of the statement of Hypolite that you have brought this charge against this accused person ?
George; Among other evidence.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: No, that is not so; you already told me you not have anything  more after Hypolite’s statement ? — No sir.
Whatever it was you had before in your view could not substantiate the charge against this accused person? — Yes sir.
Otherwise you would not have charged him ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So your cases rests totally Mr George on the evidence of Mr Hypolite ? — No sir.
Having charged Hypolite, proceedings commenced before the magistrate in Rio Claro ?
GEORGE: In Mayaro sir.
At the time you charged Hypolite you were not assisted by any senior police officers ? — yes sir.
Who were these officers ? — Sgt Mohammed, Inspector Khan, Snr. Supt Philbert.
Any others ? — Not senior sir.
What about Mr Nedd, was he assisting you ? — Not at that time.
 From the time you charged Hypolite there were police investigations about voter padding ?
GEORGE: I do not know if that was the period, sir. An inquiry was going on.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Do you recall a general election took place sometime in December, 2000 ? —Yes
And the result of that election was keenly contested ? — yes
Two of the persons involved, you remember Gypsy and Chaitan ? —Yes sir.
That was a big thing in this country ? — To some people.
Not to you ? — No sir.
You were aware, were you not, that some your superiors in this matter was also concerned about this question of voter padding, including Mr Philbert; they were involved in investigations about voter padding ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: There were also other investigations and inquiries into corruption in the government?
Witness said he did not know whether those inquiries into the government was during the time he charged Hypolite.
After complaints by members of the jury about the low tone of voice by Mr George, in that they were not hearing him properly, the judge had the witness adjust the stand of his (witness) microphone which he placed on some books.
Hudson-Phillips continued: In any event the case against Hypolite was commenced before the magistrate in Mayaro ? — Yes sir.
Several witnesses gave evidence ? — yes
You were the complainant in that matter ? — Yes sir.
And Mr George on February 20, 2001 you charged this accused present with the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh ? — Around that date sir.
At the time you swore to that information Hypolite was still charged with the same offence ? —Yes sir.
So at one time you had two persons charged with the identical offence, with the murder of Sumairsingh?
GEORGE : Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Shortly before you charged this accused present you were handed a statement by Inspector Khan. It was given to you, or recorded from Hypolite ? —yes sir.
That statement was dated February 16 ? — Yes sir
This statement by Hypolite handed to you was a statement under caution? — Yes sir.
And it was witnessed by Supt Philbert ? — Yes sir.
And Sgt Abraham ? — Yes sir.
And then witnessed by the brother of a Member of Parliament, isn’t that so — the Member of Parliament for Sangre Grande; isn’t his brother an attorney ?
GEORGE: I do not know that for sure.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; You do not know Mr Roger Boynes ? — He is an attorney.
You don’t know that he has a brother, another attorney, who is now a Minister of Government; you don’t know that ? — No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; But this lawyer who witnessed this statement was not the lawyer for Hypolite on the charge of murder at all ? — No sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; So Mr Brooks was appearing for Hypolite on the murder charge, and he also appeared after this statement was taken ? — I am not quite sure.
 HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Do you know Mr Boynes appeared in the magistrate’s court for Hypolite ? —No sir.
This statement witnessed by Mr Philbert and Mr Boynes, was taken in the dead of the night. Do you have reason to doubt that it started at 9.50 pm and was not completed until 12.50 am the next day ? — No sir.
JUDGE: No, meaning what ?
GEORGE: I have no reason to doubt.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: And this was after a lot of evidence had been led.
Based on that statement you charged Dhanraj Singh ? — Yes sir.
You then Mr George cited Hypolite against Dhanraj Singh ? —Yes sir.
The same man you had charged with the murder before ? — Yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: In addition, the DPP discontinued the proceedings against Hypolite? — I understand so, yes sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: And then he was given immunity on condition? — Yes
One of the conditions was, that he must not leave Trinidad ? — I am not aware of that, sir.
So you did not know the condition under which your star witness is existing Mr George ? — I’m not sure.
One of the conditions too is that he must remain in police custody ?
GEORGE: He asked for police protection.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So there are policemen in this man’s house? — I don’t know that.
I want to know if this man is free to talk the truth ? — Very free, sir.
The thing is he must subject himself to the State ? — Protection for his safety, sir.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Then if he does not subject himself you can still charge him, that is a condition ?
GEORGE: I am not aware of that.
A problem turned up about the witness’s signature on some document which the State promised to submit to the court today.
Hudson-Phillips then informed the court that having regard to his diabetic condition, the situation dictated that he should end his questioning of the witness for the day.
Justice Baird looking at the clock which indicated it was 3.47 pm jocularly said, ‘diabetes, or no diabetes, I think it is an appropriate time to adjourn.
Hearing resumes 9 am today, when Sgt George will return to the witness stand.