184 / 494
183
8.48.
During his hospitalisation, his house was damaged. There was a
hole in the roof through which water came. He put his losses at $300,000.00
and received $60,000.00 by way of compensation. He says it was not enough.
Under cross-examination, Mr. Harriott stated that when he was shot, his building
was not under gunfire. He said that it was a ricochet bullet that “tear up the
roof”.
FINDINGS
8.49.
We are unable to determine who was responsible for the
damage to Mr. Harriott’s house. It could have been a bullet from the
security forces or from a gunman. On the state of the evidence we
make no finding as to responsibility. Mr. Harriott was quite a
satisfactory witness. His losses require further investigation.
(xvi) Roselyn Newton
8.50.
Ms. Newton lived at 52 Lenford Path. On 24 May about 2.30 p.m.
she was at home with members of her family when she heard gunshots and
banging on the door. Winston Barrett opened the door. Ms. Newton saw about
eight soldiers. A soldier ordered them to go over the fence and they went next
door to Ms. Pricey. They were ordered to lie on the ground face down.
Ms. Newton claimed brutality. She said the men in her family were taken into a
pathway and then “to a yard”. She heard soldiers question the three men before
she was sent to Chang Avenue and again made to lie face down “in the mud”.
Ms. Newton gave further evidence, which we discuss in Chapter 9, in which she
alleged that her son Winston Barrett and her nephew Lundie Murphy were killed
by security forces.
8.51.
Ms. Newton did not go home on the night of 24 May. She stayed
at Ms. Pricey. She said that she suffered loss and damage of $183,000.00.
Mattress cut up; the electrical wire to her fridge was cut; two cell phones