Dear Editor,
Monday’s editorial ‘Phantom collaboration?’ was well written and provides a primer for readers who are seeking to get familiar with the Roger Khan saga for the first time.
I have one critical comment and it has to do with your depiction of George Bacchus as not being a credible source/witness – a characterization also made by the commission that investigated the former minister Gajraj. I noted that you did not ascribe that characterization to Selwyn Vaughn. Both Bacchus and Vaughn are both expert witnesses. Their resumes and testimonies demonstrated their ‘appropriate’ training and experience in the criminal trade. Besides that they both served in the Phantom organization. Certainly we don’t expect Bacchus and Vaughn to be credible sources of information on religion and LCDS; neither do we expect Father Khan (fictitious name) and Sister Rose (also fictitious) to give testimony on the inner workings of the Phantom organization. Because of the nature of the offences like those attributed to the Roger Khan organization, the only persons capable of giving useful testimony would be those implicated in the crimes.
These turncoats are the ones with first-hand knowledge of their associates. It is common knowledge that in the US the successful prosecution of the mafiosi and terrorists almost always hinge on turncoats, for example, Sammy the Bull Gravano brought down mob boss John Gotti; Michael Fortier’s testimony condemned Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing case; and Manson Family members’ testimony convicted their trusted leader, Charles Manson himself. Last week’s testimony by Selwyn Vaughn confirmed George Bacchus’s incredible account of the Phantom organization which should be revisited and kept for use in any future trial or inquiry related to the Phantom/Roger Khan organization.
Yours faithfully,
Derek Braithwaite
