305 / 494
304
(vi)
He refers to the errors in para.10.59 in respect of the words
“Cheverria” and “sector 1” and the video tape evidence referred to
by DSP Tabannah.
Commission’s Comments and Findings
10.89.
We are bound to say that we find Sgt. Waugh’s response to
be insulting, rude and unworthy of a police officer participating in a
judicial or quasi-judicial Enquiry. We do not take kindly to accusations
of bias, partiality and vitriolic effusions.
10.90.
It is explicit in para.10.63 that we appreciated that
Sgt. Waugh drove the truck and Cons. Maxwell made notes. Although
we accept that Sgt. Waugh may have been unfamiliar with the names
of roads in Tivoli Gardens, since 24 May was the first day that he
visited that area, we find it to be bordering on the incredulous that he
could effectively make “mental notes” of the several places where he
drove and where bodies were located.
10.91.
We do not dispute his carefully worded response that he
“brought bodies to KPH that were pronounced dead by doctors”. The
issue that goes to the heart of Sgt. Waugh’s credibility is ‘when’ did he
take bodies. His evidence was that he took 2 bodies
on 24 May
and
they were pronounced dead by doctors at KPH. This evidence is
contradicted by the documentary records of the hospital. It is also
contradicted by SSP Graham who testified that Sgt. Waugh never
reached KPH. How then could doctors pronounce dead, 2 persons
whom they did not see? We need not reiterate the evidence of
ACP Gause (cited at para.10.75) of the procedures used by KPH in
relation to injured or deceased persons being brought to the hospital.