195 / 494
194
Having carefully considered her response, the Commission sees no
reason to alter its original finding and wishes to emphasize the
following:
a.
The Commissioners, carefully, dispassionately and
objectively reviewed her Miss Lindsay’s evidence, taking
into consideration all relevant facts before arriving at
our findings.
b.
Miss Lindsay gave four witness statements, on 6 July
2010, 28 August 2010, 4 May 2011 and 27 June 2015.
She signed all as true and correct. She said she believed
that the witness statement of 4 May 2011 was written
by Mr. Lloyd D’Aguilar and that of 27 June 2015 was
also written by him. Those four statements contained
internal inconsistencies and discrepancies and, under
oral examination, it became clear to the Commission
that Miss Lindsay made statements influenced by what
she was told by others. There was very little direct
evidence of what she actually saw. Her admission of the
role played by Mr. Lloyd D’Aguilar in the preparation of
her statements cast obvious doubt on her veracity and
the reliability of her evidence. We reiterate our
statement in Chapter 1 that a Commission of Enquiry
applies the civil standard of proof to findings of fact.
c.
Miss Lindsay was not a convincing witness under cross-
examination. On more than one occasion she gave
evidence under cross-examination that was in direct
conflict with her evidence-in-chief.