Police rebuffs charges by Nigel Hughes; defends charge against Henry youth in murder probe of Haresh Singh
See below full statement issued by the Guyana Police Force (GPF):
The Guyana Police Force (GPF) notes with serious concern the allegations made by Nigel Hughes, Attorney-at-Law, who represents Glaston Henry (aka Gladwin Henry) that an insufficient investigation was done as it relates to the purported alibi witnesses.
The GPF wishes to set the facts straight since it appears that Mr. Hughes insists on conducting a trial of this matter in the court of public opinion although this matter is ‘sub judice’.
During a video interview conducted on the 26th day of June, 2021 and another video interview conducted on the 27th day of June, 2021 with Glaston Henry, he exercised his right to remain silent on each occasion. At no time whatsoever did the suspect inform the investigators that he had an alibi or that he was elsewhere during the time of the murder.
Oddly, it was his attorney who belatedly on the last occasion told an investigator after the said video interview was completed that Glaston Henry was elsewhere and there were witnesses. The attorney did not submit a statement for Glaston Henry or put any alibi on record either in an oral or written statement during the video interviews that were conducted.
No alibi witnesses ever presented themselves to the investigators for their statement to be taken. Nothing prevented this from being done. However, pre-prepared statements were later delivered to the investigators at CID Headquarters after 16:00hrs on the 28th day of June, 2021 and investigators immediately commenced probing the alibi statements by making earnest efforts to contact these witnesses. The assistance of senior officers stationed in Region 5 were also solicited and they could not locate two of these witnesses namely Bibi Shaheman and Claudette Kurtzious at their given addresses.
Additionally, details of this purported alibi were also furnished to the investigators via an email correspondence from Mr. Hughes on behalf of Glaston Henry dated Wednesday 30th June, 2021. The contents of the said email, inter alia, set out the following alibi for Glaston Henry:
“Mr. Gladston Henry, father of our client attended the post mortem and video recorded it live as it was being conducted. Our client along with several witnesses were at the home of his parents viewing the live transmission. He remained at the location for the entire day as confirmed by each of the above witnesses.”
Perhaps it eluded Mr. Hughes’ memory that the entire post mortem examination of Isaiah Henry and Joel Henry were video recorded by the investigators in his presence. After receiving this email from Mr. Hughes, the video recording was reviewed by the investigators assigned to the case to ascertain the veracity of the alibi proffered on behalf of Glaston Henry by his attorney since he had elected to remain silent which was his right.
This recording showed that Glaston Henry’s father briefly entered and exited the Memorial Gardens Funeral Home where the post mortem examination was being conducted for the sole purpose of identifying the body of his son Isaiah Henry. This is in keeping with the standard operating procedure.
Glaston Henry’s father was never holding a phone in his hand at the time, he only had a mask and a rag in his hands. Further, when he exited the room, he could be seen standing outside and putting on his mask while holding a rag in the other hand. Glaston Henry’s father NEVER re-entered the room. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to have “attended the post mortem examination and video recorded it live as it was being conducted”. This diametrically opposes what is being peddled as the alibi for Glaston Henry that he was home at the time watching a live video recorded by his father, when his father was never present in the room during the conduct of the post mortem examination.
It therefore follows, that all nine (9) purported alibi witnesses are currently being sought by the GPF in connection with alleged attempts to pervert the course of justice since if the father of Glaston Henry never recorded any post mortem examination live, then clearly they could not have been home watching a live video together with Glaston Henry.
It should also be noted that these purported alibi witnesses directly contradict other individuals who placed Glaston Henry in the company of the other suspects at Haresh Singh’s home and at the scene of the crime at the material time.
Moreover, it was alleged during the press conference hosted by Mr. Hughes that one of the investigators, that is, Inspector Sarrabo was present in Berbice at the home of the family of Isaiah Henry at the time the post mortem examination was being conducted. However, this contention was also another blatant attempt to mislead and distort the facts in this matter since Inspector Sarrabo can be seen present during the post mortem examination, in the recording made by the investigators and also in the background of a ‘Prime News’ video interview that was being conducted with Mr. Hughes immediately after the conclusion of the post mortem examination.
Finally, in light of the above, the GPF wishes to also reiterate that it has discharged its mandate in completing the investigation and sending the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for legal advice. The charges were instituted upon the legal advice received from the DPP and therefore, to indicate that this charge is a miscarriage of justice is wholly unmeritorious and can only be viewed as a desperate and deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.