Dear Editor,
The Brickdam Police Station was razed to the ground by fire, and in the aftermath of the conflagration, there comes a confession statement as to the cause of the fire.
Now, the prisoner-confessant at the time of the blaze is Clarence Greene, who has come out with damning evidence as to the cause of the fire. Soon after, there was a flurry of news reports and counter opinions – I say opinions because they weren’t there – as to the “real” cause of the crime, all of which raise more questions than answers as to the true cause.
Now, the message coming through from the politically aligned media is that Clarence Greene is either some sort of a snitch, is stupid, is a fool, or likes to talk; all geared at producing a desired outcome – that the Police are responsible for burning down their own facility. That media hype makes good sensationalism, but could their theory stand the litmus test? That’s the question to which sensible answers have to be provided. So, the trial by media continues.
I was fortunate to listen to an interview by a Guyanese now living in New York. In his interview, he asked certain pertinent closed-ended questions with the usual criminal subtlety to add to it. His questioning went, “So Clarence Greene is a junkie,” meaning the informant was not in full control of his faculties when he confessed to the Police.
However, he was promptly exposed with that theory when the relative vehemently rejected that her cousin is a junkie. To bolster her claim, she cited several instances of him acting as a hardworking and responsible citizen, even building a house for his girlfriend, among other things a responsible person would do.
But – and this is the important part of her statement – she stated that he had had several run-ins with the law. This did not go down well with the interviewer, who kept probing away with his prescribed agenda to make Greene out as the hapless victim and the Police as the perpetrators of the crime.
He also made mention of Greene giving a false address, like that is a strange phenomenon of criminals. The relatives gave another address of the man, while subsequent newscasts gave another two addresses.
This might seem strange to those who are not familiar with criminals, but this is not strange behaviour to anyone who deals with criminals on a daily basis. Criminals do this all the time; they choose whatever means is most convenient to them, and one of these is to give the wrong address.
There are several other suppositions, wherein the confessant was said to be asleep when the fire started, and as such was not a party to the act, but these are all coming from persons who were not there, and cannot stand the test of time in a court of law.
Now, we are told that Greene has since recanted, something that has long been expected to happen, given the pressure he is subjected to by certain political big wigs of the day. After all of that politicising of the matter, Clarence Greene would have had sleepless nights trying to figure out whom to please. Caught between the devil and the deep sea, he might have decided to go with his criminal political buddies and say he didn’t say what he said.
The fact remains that he gave a sworn statement to the Police, corroborated by some of his peers, and this would be hard to disprove when the matter comes up in court.
Asinine questions are asked as to where the lighter came from and where he got the sponge to light the fire. In the same token, I would ask the question: Where did the incendiary device/s come from in the Lusignan fires? Or where did incendiary devices come from in the Camp Street fire? In the Camp Street fire, several fires were started before the major one, in which 17 prisoners met their fiery demise. Ever wondered where those lighters came from? Negligence on the prison officers’ part in not making proper checks, but my theory comes again: criminals are smart people, they have the capability to make it happen.
Most shocking in the Camp Street fire was the order to lock the doors. I wonder what would have been the pseudo sleuths’ message now had the order been given to lock the doors at Brickdam. Did they ever stop to think about that?
I must hasten to state that what is pellucid in the criminal minds of the political operatives here is that the Brickdam Station should have been burnt flat and no one should have been held accountable – a job well done. “Anything to destabilise the Government,” as one political activist said. However, their plans failed miserably, someone made an open confession, and there is utter embarrassment for them. And you know what, I anxiously await the outcome of this trial.
Respectfully,
Neil Adams
