Dear Editor,
The Guyana Police Force wishes to put on record its concern over the Editorial published in the Guyana Times on Saturday May 15, 2010, which is obviously timed to fall in conjunction with the statement made by the Director of Public Prosecutions that police investigators need more supervision, which is captioned on the front page with a subsequent story inside.
The Guyana Police Force wishes to reiterate that the initial report received in this matter was that the body of Bridgette Gangadeen was found on the roadway at Vigilance, ECD, by a passerby at about 0225h on Sunday May 02, 2010, who alerted the police at Vigilance Police Station. The body was found lying on the back in an East to West position on the Northern carriageway of the road. She was taken to the GPHC where she was pronounced DOA.
Investigations led to the arrest of her husband Dwarka Gangadeen at about 0300h on Sunday May 02, 2010, at a friend’s house at Enterprise, ECD. Dwarka Gangadeen said that he and his wife had gone to a party at Enmore, ECD, during which his cell phone rang and he did not answer it. His wife confronted him that it was a woman who had called and an argument developed between them and they left for home.
He said that at home the argument continued during which he got a phone call and he told his wife that his friends were calling for him to accompany them to catch shrimps. At this stage she accused him of going to meet a woman and she joined his motor canter vehicle GCC 6956. In the vehicle the argument continued during which he began to abuse her verbally and at Vigilance she jumped out of the vehicle. He said that he felt the back wheel of the vehicle run over something but he continued going East and turned South into Stathspey School Road onto the Embankment and went to his home at Lusignan, ECD. From there he called a taxi and went to his friend at Enterprise.
There was no eye-witness to what happened prior to and during the journey in the motor vehicle. Persons living in the area where the body was found were canvassed by the police but no useful information was obtained. The police were left with only the evidence of a body lying on the Northern carriageway of the road with the head crushed. There were no visible signs on the throat which would have suggested strangulation and a subsequent check of the motor canter revealed no trace of any blood. Hence only the story told by the suspect, which he maintained throughout the investigation, was left for the investigators to probe.
Subsequently an autopsy was done by the Government Pathologist on Monday May 03, 2010, and his findings given to the Police who have always and will continue to rely on the autopsy results issued by the Government Pathologist. The police then took the findings to the Director of Public Prosecutions who asked for further investigations to be done in order to clear up a number of points which were outlined.
At the same time the DPP also advised that Dwarka Gangadeen be charged with driving a motor vehicle on a road while his blood alcohol level exceeded the prescribed limit.
By this time the constitutional provision of 72 hours for the detention of a suspect had expired and consequently Dwarka Gangadeen was placed on station bail in the sum of $200,000 on May 06, 2010. He was later charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and appeared at the Vigilance Magistrate Court on May 07, 2010, where he was placed on $10,000.00 bail.
Just prior to the elapsing of the 72 hours, relatives of the victim began pressing for a second autopsy through a lawyer whose services they had retained. It was recognized that permission would have to be sought for the Pathologist to be certified and permitted to perform the autopsy in Guyana and this was done by the lawyer.
At this stage the police took control of the body and a second autopsy was performed on Friday May 07, 2010. Shortly after, the Attorney for Dwarka Gangadeen called for a third autopsy and went to court to prevent the cremation of the body. Consequently the Court made certain rulings and a Court Order was made which was served on the Funeral Parlour and the relatives. The Commissioner of Police was not served with any such Order.
Subsequently the Director of Public Prosecutions gave advice that Dwarka Gangadeen must be charged for murder. He was then charged and appeared at the Cove and John Magistrate’s Court on May 12, 2010, where he was remanded to prison.
The later report of strangulation would not have been known if the second autopsy was not done. The provisional report of the second autopsy did not say that the cause of death was strangulation, but rather found injuries consistent with an attempt to strangle the deceased. The police are to receive the final report from the Pathologist.
Having examined all the circumstances the police took a decision that the body should not be cremated but buried and this was communicated to the relatives.
The statement in the Editorial which says that “From the time that Mrs. Gangadin’s body was discovered, up to the day it was scheduled to be cremated, the police were unable to act professionally and take charge of the case. It appears that the police now want to prove they are in control; but, instead of bringing clarity to the matter, they have increased the confusion and overstepped their bounds” is clearly a value judgment by the Guyana Times.
The police were acting professionally and took charge of the case from the beginning. If not the police, we call on the Guyana Times to say who was in charge.
The reasoning behind the Guyana Times Editorial is faulty and they seem to have become experts in time lines for homicides and appear to have also become experts in what is proper investigation and what is not.
How could the police question the autopsy report except where the findings contradict the evidence found on the ground?
A case such as this is uncharted waters and the Guyana Police Force wishes to state that it did the best it could under difficult circumstances including two autopsy reports. It is now for the Court to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for the matter to be sent to the High Court.
The Police Force wishes to call on the media to be more supportive of the work of the Force as against what it currently does, that is to say, look for a single error and make a mountain out of it. When the Force does good work, little is published or does not attract wide media coverage as compared with any mistakes it may make.
The Guyana Police Force also wishes to state that we stand behind our detectives who are conducting investigations. Our investigators are continually receiving up-to-date training both locally and overseas to ensure that they can carry out their responsibilities effectively and we have an investigator with over thirty-six years experience who has been exposed to major murders and kidnappings, right down to assault, as the major trainer.
Significantly, investigators are presently benefitting from training that is being provided by an overseas contracted agency, The Emergence Group, under the Citizen Security Programme.
Yours faithfully,
Ivelaw Whittaker
Public Relations and Press Officer
