Mr. Sallah, I was making comments buttressing some of the points Hamjatta made to Cherno Baba, but as usual, you have to find something in my comments that either questions my integrity, or my seriousness. I've not accused you of anything you're not guilty of. The Koro Ceesay murder case, and your support for the terribly flawed Constitution were the main issues we wanted you to tackle. Instead, you started shoving PDOIS's political diary since the coup at us. Why would you volunteer information that was never requested at all -chronological or whatever? What could be more rope-a-dop than that? I was at a loss about whether I was dealing with a Muhamed Ali, or an expert at the foxtrot. I do have some issues about your Koro explanation, but I wanted to give Hamjatta the courtesy of replying first, since the piece was lobbed at him. But it seems that you're eager to hear from me directly, so here we go. On Koro, several points. You keep deliberately confusing issues for what, I don't know. First, you're lashing out at "hypocrites" who are talking now, but were quiet in July 1995. But this was a time when no other politician but yourselves were able to address issues in the media the way you see it. You had Foroyaa which was no longer an Organ of your party, but a full-fledge newspaper. The others were anything but politicians at the time. Darbo was still a full-time lawyer, Amat Bah was a private citizen, Dibba and Andrews Camara were for all intents and purposes out of the loop. So were the PPP people. So what would you have done differently if you were in their shoes? Go to Radio Gambia and announce your skepticism of the govt.'s story on Koro? Interrupt the eulogy by Edward Singhateh and tell the crowd that "they" killed Koro? Force the Observer newspaper to print a piece accusing the govt. of the murder? What would you do? You're blaming everybody now for not speaking when no one but yourselves had the means to speak out at the time. Where is your sense of fairness Mr. Sallah? I'm beginning to question whether you have any. And just as you're unfairly blaming your co-opponents of the govt. for not speaking out during a period when they were forbidden to do so, you're outraged that people have a problem with your half-baked investigation into Koro's death. Why is it half-baked? Because it's fundamentally flawed, and it's little wonder that you arrived at a flawed conclusion. We'll see. First, you started the investigation on a false assumption: "What is the most reliable source of getting to the fact?" you asked. "The most reliable source is the eye witness. The person who sees and testifies what he or she has seen enables us to know the truth at first hand." Then you went on about hearsay etc, etc. Believe it or not Mr. Sallah, eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as you think. If you have several eyewitnesses who give identical versions of what they've seen (the chance of which diminishes exponentially as the number of witnesses grow,) you're in luck. Otherwise, you'll have to look elsewhere. Looks like you had hit a dead end because you couldn't find a single eyewitness. However, being that this is the dying days of the twentieth century, there is something called Forensic technology. The Gambia doesn't have it, but all the govt. had to do was ask the UN or some advanced country. That would have established beyond doubt how Ousman Koro Ceesay's life ended. So, instead of going to the scene looking for an eyewitness(es) you really would have helped matters if your reporters could shield off the site, and call on the govt. to invite the UN or some other body to conduct a thorough SCIENTIFIC investigation. If the govt. refused, that would confirm some things for people. Whether you know it or not, whoever killed Koro, and left his body on that site left his/their own imprints at the scene. They call it DNA, the genetic material that uniquely establishes our identities. And you'll be amazed at the type of DNA material you can leave at any spot just by stopping there. The science is so advanced now that they can use your skin flakes to tie you to a crime scene! But, in your view, you had to have an eyewitness. On the outskirts of desolate Jamburr, in the middle of a rainy night, you were looking for an eyewitness to a crime? And you're surprised that no one came forward. Given the political climate in Gambia then or even now, do you seriously believe that any one who sees soldiers committing a crime will jump up and run to reporters? Where is the realism here Mr. Sallah? This is exactly why I said that you have a knack for believing totally ludicrous things. But the main point is, in this age of LapTop Super computers, you're still using the abacus! And you're blaming us who fault your conclusion? Let's look at that conclusion for a minute. Doubting the credibility of the lone witness who dared say the crime scene was staged, you concluded: "So we either had to believe that the impact on the wall was caused by a sledge hammer or the vehicle which had burnt and in which Koro's body was found. With this situation, and in the absence of any other information, we indicated in our issue that the facts we had pointed to an accident- that we had only suspicion of foul play but no evidence to substantiate it." In truth, you didn't have enough evidence to either say that it's foul play or that it's an accident. But, you lent credence to the accident theory anyway. Is that because of political expediency? Your only evidence that it was an accident was that your reporters saw glass near the bridge, and eyewitnesses told you that Koro's car was near the bridge wall, and that it had a dent. But no eyewitness saw the accident! (In any case, I'm assuming that you don't watch any movies at all 'cause if you do, you'll be able to tell make-belief from the real. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to stage a "convincing" accident. Try reading some Ghanaian newspapers. Rawlings' goons are masters at staging "accidents.") But since you were only looking for people who could give you first-hand information, I wonder why you settled for second hand information? This is ironical because in your opener, you said: "FOROYAA first heard about Koro's death from two responsible persons. (Your words, my emphasis.) They indicated that they have heard that soldiers had murdered Koro." It would have been more prudent at that point for you to put some pressure on govt. to either appoint an Independent Investigator or get some International body involved. You decided to be Sherlock Holmes instead. Or is it Hercules Poirot? In any case, the result as they say, is history. So what do I think? I think your quixotic adventure has backfired. You were well over your heads in this case. To begin with, this case stank to hell from the word go. The fact that you've not been able to confirm the obvious (Koro's leaving the airport after Jammeh left,) should have caused you to invite more experienced hands. But, like many things you do, you pretended that you have the competence to deal with a problem that is simply out of your league. What do you know about a murder investigation? What do you know about forensic technology? Do you have a laboratory where you can analyze specimens etc? "NO" in all cases! But that didn't deter you. Instead, you went ahead, came back almost empty-handed, and decided to give credence to the option that seemed more politically expedient. You may deny this, but the reaction of the govt. would have been a lot different if you had said there seems to have been foul play, only you cannot prove it. So, like it or not, the only thing your story accomplished is that it gave Koro's killers comfort in believing that they've deceived you and the public. You ask: "What did anybody do that was more than what we did? What is anybody doing now that is more than what we did?" What ordinary Gambians did at the time - as they're doing now, is to call for a real murder investigation, not a hogwash. You on the other hand had lent credence to the ridiculous notion that Koro had died in an accident, and then proceeded to call for an inquest. No wonder people missed that qualifier in your article. But there is a clear difference in what you V. what everyone else did/did not do. So, instead of playing naïve (acting outraged that people are "sullying" your good name,) you need to accept the fact that you've jumped at a conclusion that is not supported by the facts you've gathered yourself. And you could have easily put this whole thing behind you by telling your readers that, you simply don't have enough evidence to go either way: It could be a murder case, or it could be a genuine accident. If you had said that, the storm that brewed over that unfortunate investigation never would have. But instead, you revert to combat mode counter attacking anyone who dares question your story. You live in a tiny country where presidents' quarrels with their wives is next-day public fodder, and you're trying to sell a spurious story that runs contrary to common sense, and you are outraged that no one is buying it? And I'm the one who shouldn't be taken seriously? Come on Mr. Sallah! This whole case is one big tragedy. One family's sorrow has been turned into a national obsession, and the reason is simple. The death of Koro Ceesay symbolizes everything that is wrong with the Jammeh regime: the lack of respect for the Rule of Law, the brutality, the megalomania, "we can do anything we want with impunity." In short, the Untouchables Mentality. Here is a very smart young professional, a member of the highest sanctum in public life, and his life has been snuffed out for no reason. And the govt.'s reaction defies any perception of innocence. But you jumped into the fray, and clearly muddled waters. Maybe it's not too much to ask that you filter out the impurities. It's in your best interest to do that. What was a rumor in July 1995 is now a clamor. And believe me, this case will develop into a crescendo that could bring down the Jammeh regime. If I were a betting man, I'll tell you that the day Jammeh is kicked out, people won't be talking about the sick economy, or the nepotism going on, they'll be talking about Ousman Koro Ceesay! His name packs a punch because of what he symbolizes. You owe it to his memory to write a retraction telling your readers that you never really had enough evidence to support the theory that Koro died in an accident. That should help your image or reputation. Merely lashing out at those who question your investigative methods and conclusion isn't helping. The more you delay, the more the damage to your reputation. The choice is your's. I'll reply to your piece this morning later. Good day. Saul. >From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: To Hamjatta: Halifamania >Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:54:18 -0000 > >Saul, > >Your last piece to Hamjatta dated 18 December 1999 is making it very >difficult for me to take you seriously. Initially, I had the intention to >deal with all your concerns in a chronological order. This was dubbed as >deviation tactics. I acknowledged your fears and then promised to dea ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------