Advertisement 87
Advertisement 211
The shooting victim, and threatening language accused, Cornelius John. (iWN file photo)
The shooting victim, and threatening language accused, Cornelius John. (iWN file photo)
Advertisement 219

By On-Foot Observer

“Analysis of claims midwives the healthy delivery of sound opinions” – On-Foot Observer 


“Sound opinions can die even before birth, no matter how good the analysis; they can be lost to a miscarriage, much like justice” – On-Foot Observer

In the same hypothetical theme as used in part one of this article; we will assume that all that was publicly said on the matter by the relevant parties are factual in order to reveal some peculiarities, inconsistencies and downright contradictions.

Advertisement 21

According to Mr. John’s lawyer, his medical record states that two people entered his property on the night of the incident, and that they were both males. However, Mr. John’s repeated retelling of the story asserts that there were three people, with one of them being Ms Morgan.

The fact that the medical record states that there were two people, while Mr. John insists that there were three leaves us with two possibilities, either:

a). Mr. John told the admitting medical personnel that two people entered his yard, or,

b). Mr. John told the admitting medical personnel that three people entered his yard

If we are to go with option a)., that would mean that even though Mr. John told the nurse that there were two people, he later adjusted the figure for the media interviews.

If this is the case, it would mean that either

a1). Mr. John was so disoriented by the incident that he mistakenly provided the wrong figure while being admitted.

a2). He recollected that there was an additional person after the admission was completed.

a3). He intentionally decided to change this part of his story while being admitted.

If we are to go with option b)., then he indeed stated that there were three, but

b1) The person who admitted him made an error.

b2) Three was indeed written, but it was later changed.

It would be most helpful to be able to scrutinise the actual medical records for the presence of any corrective or altering pen strokes around this section of the information. And, even in the absence of such telling marks, to observe whether the record is oddly flawless, and seem to be written up delicately, with an unnatural amount of care.

It may also be helpful to find out if the statement given to the police by Mr. John confirms or conflicts with the figure and genders mentioned in the medical record.

“I had spoken to Senator Morgan, she called me when the incident occurred as you would expect that she would…” – Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves

The prime minister’s claim that Ms Morgan called him after the incident places her on the scene. However, the medical record says that two people had entered Mr. John’s property, and that both were male.

“You shoot me in me foot. Why you didn’t kill me one time!?…and then neigbours gathered from all over, people gather—at least, they was around all the time looking….” – Mr. John

Seeing that it has long been established that there were witnesses; could not these witnesses serve to corroborate or refute the figure claimed by the medical record? That surely would go a long way in unraveling some of the tangles presented by this he-say, she-say dynamic, by way of accuracy.

“My wife was in the house over there when I was shot” – Mr. John

According to the Searchlight Newspaper, Mrs. John was there on the porch.

Also, if Mrs. John was on the porch at the time of the incident doesn’t that grant her the same privilege as the other witnesses, making her yet an another person who should be able to say whether there were two or three people, and if any of them were female?

With so many avenues to the truth, the rightful figure of the people who entered Mr. John’s yard on that night, as well as their genders, really ought not to be such a mystery.

If the medical record is accurate, and only two males had visited Mr. John’s property, which means that Ms. Morgan was not there, then where and when did Mr. John threaten Ms. Morgan? Does the “so, you want to kill the senator” line along with her not being on the scene suggest that the shooting may have likely been retaliation to a threat made at sometime prior?

If Ms Morgan was not present on the scene of the incident, why was she named as a person of interest, and then later charged in the first place?

Wouldn’t a solid alibi, placing her somewhere else altogether at that time, along with the confirmation from the medical record that there were two men (no woman), be enough to completely dismantle the threat charge against her?

And, if indeed there were two males, why is there only one male currently up for trial against Mr. John?

Can the third person be classified as a witness or an accomplice?

If he were to be deemed an accomplice, what charges can be brought against him seeing that he would have been party to at least some of the happenings, despite eventually objecting?

Would the charges likely be related to the trespassing or joint enterprise characteristics of the incident? If so, wouldn’t these naturally generate additional charges on Ms Morgan and Mr. Nelson as well?

Would charging the third person stir up a lot more than it would calm?

“Now, today, they say the complaint is made by Ashelle and Karim. The two of them made a complaint against him. Strange enough, there does not appear to be a complaint by the third person who was there,” – Kay Bacchus-Baptiste

“And Karim, who went there … with her — because there is no charge against my client for doing anything to Karim. None,” – Kay Bacchus-Baptiste

Mr. Nelson is charged with wounding and discharging a firearm at Mr. John, while Ms Morgan is charged with assault and intent to wound Mr. John.

The complaint made by Mr. Nelson against Mr. John might be the only thing to explain his own actions, yet it was never made into an official charge. Why did it not develop into another charge against Mr. John, in the same way that the complaints of Mrs. John and Ms Morgan did? Was Mr. Nelson’s complaint somehow less serious, or not compelling enough to become a formal charge?

“My wife was in the house over there when I was shot” — Mr. John

According to the Searchlight Newspaper, Mrs. John was there on the porch.

This, along with the medical records, which says that there were two males, would seem to suggest that none of the two people that Mr. John had threatened were at the scene at the time of the incident. So, if both ladies that he did threaten were not on the scene of the incident, then what was the immediate cause of the shooting?

What would Mr. Nelson’s defense look like?

In the same way that Ms Morgan is being charged for threats solely on the accusation of Mr. John, how is it that she is not also charged for possession of an illegal firearm, seeing that the weapon is directly linked to the charge against her. Her charge is threats with intent to wound. With what was she going to wound him?

Mrs. Bacchus-Baptiste claims that she and her client were shown a typewritten statement that the police said was given by Ms Morgan on April 14th, 2021 concerning the incident.

The incident occurred on April 13th, 2021. So, if she was threatened by Mr. John, and he was beaten and shot in her presence –her presence, as implied by the prime minister’s mention of her call to him — why would she wait until the next day to report something that serious to the police?

There are two charges against Mr. John for verbal threats, if there was no physical assault or physical threat, was Mr. John shot on the basis of verbal threats?

“Then they tried to say that Mr. John assaulted Karim and Ashelle with a cutlass. I was there when the police put that to Mr. John. They tried to raise a case but they could not find the evidence; not an iota of evidence to support that.” – Mrs. Bacchus-Baptiste

“…the photographs will show, unmistakably, there was no cutlass present” – Mrs. Bacchus-Baptiste

When exactly were the reports of Mr. Nelson, Mrs. John and Ms Morgan made?

Do any of these statements make reference to a cutlass?

If none refer to a cutlass, then that may point directly to fabrication attempts on the evidence.

If only the statements of Ms Morgan and Mr. Nelson refer to a cutlass, while that of Mrs. John does not, then that may indicate that the threats on Mrs. John occurred at a completely different time than that of Ms Morgan.

If this is the case, shouldn’t the threats against Mrs. John be treated as a separate matter altogether?

“Since this thing happen to me, she hadn’t call me, she hadn’t said anything to me” – Mr. John

If you think about it, this is a very peculiar statement since it seems not to fit neatly into the narrative of what he says or what she says.

Mr. John’s account of the incident fails to run smoothly at times, and even has some downright puzzling moments. It is as if pieces of the jig-saw puzzle had been broken off and hidden. We might have been able to have more to work with had Ms Morgan and Mr. Nelson been more willing to play along with the he-say-she-say dynamic, and spat out some of their own pieces.

In this affair, some claims, even though quite peculiar go unchallenged, while others contradict each other in a way that undermines the analysis. How sound can your opinions be given such claims?

The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].

One reply on “He say, she say and a gunshot wound (Pt 2)”

  1. Justice in svg have 2 faces since the ulp administration came into power, Vincentians have been WARNED years ago but did not pay attention, now many will pay the price even the ones who Is a boot licker

Comments closed.