Thursday, August 06, 2009

Guyana 360 vindicated

After we first raised the possibility of there being more than one spy equipment and laptop, the Commissioner of Police, Henry Greene has finally vindicated our position. It is on rceord that this blog had called on the top cop to produce the infamous spy equipment to reporters so that some lingering questions can be answered. Yesterday, Mr. Greene did so, but his refusal to field questions from reporters, still leaves many unanswered questions.

We were brave enough to call Enrico Woolford's reporting into question. Several emails chided us for it - many suggesting that a man of Woolford's stature should not be mde to answer to a blog. It was Woolford who boldly reported that the spy equipment which Guyana authorities say they have in their possession was wheeled into court in New York.
From the opening paragraph of his report he said, "The Guyana Government says that the Guyanese police have the ‘intercept’ receiver and laptop that Roger Khan was using. Yesterday the US Government produced it in Court."
His obvious suggestion is that the Guyana authorities were lying. Mr. Woolford should be made to retract his comment or at least provide evidence to support this claim. The police has provided evidence to support that they have a "spy equipment" in their possession, reportedly taken from Khan. Woolford must be made to do the same.

Reporters live fo that big story and in Guyana, it just does not get any bigger than the current Roger Khan saga, but Woolford must be mindful not to interject his political views. He seems so excited that he had an orgasmic experience the size of a vulcanic eruption in the NY courthouse...ahhhhh, oooooo, ahhhhh....Yessssss.... I got the Government finally!

We openly challenge this letter writer to prove when and in which court it was said that the spy equipment in the hands of the US was the same one seized by Guyana authorities. This is an almost clear cut case that Woolford injected his own scrambled views into the report without first verifying the facts.

We take note with interest the fact that Kaieteur News has dumped Woolford and turned to Julia Johnson to report on the court proceedings. If this is their way around Woolford's scheme, then it is too late. The trial is drawing to an end and the damage has already been done. In addition to her school girl writing for TV, Johnson seems not to know what is news. Anyway, the trial will soon be finish!


  1. Stop maligning Enrico Woolford for reporting what was said in an open court in Brooklyn, New York. Woolford did not venture an opinion, only what was presented as evidence. Anyway, do recall that after the army seized the spy equipment from Khan et al at Good Hope in 2002, that Hhen Home Affairs Minister Ron Gajraj said the items were returned to Khan after the magistrate dismissed the charges of illegal possession of spy equipment, dangerous weapons and a bullet proof vehicle. Ergo, Khan, and not the police had the spy equipment or else Gajraj was lying. Further, why would Simels travel to Guyana and arrange for a spy equipment to be shipped to New York when the police already had it? Do you see the smokescreen that is hiding the facts? The US says it has two spy equipment and Green produced one, so there are at least three, but the ones with the US seem to contain damaging information that tie Khan to its use. Who knows what is on the one the top cop has. Let him get help figuring it out to help support the government's damage control efforts.

  2. While it is up to the letter writer to respond to your open challenge to prove when and in which court it was said that the spy equipment in the hands of the US was the same one seized by Guyana authorities, the truth is, this equipment was presented as evidence in the US court as being shipped from Guyana. If the presiding judge had any doubt about the evidence tendered and its accompanying authenticating testimony, he would have expressed it, and if he still was not satisfied with the explanations, he would have tossed the evidence. That he has not tossed the spy equipment as evidence or rejected the authenticating testimony by witnesses testufying under oath and penalty of perjury proves that Enrico's report is beyond reproof and punches holes in your flawed and biased theory that Enrico injected his opinion into his news reporting on the case. It is not Woolford's role to provide evidence to clear or condem anyone; he is only there to report what he read, saw or heard.

  3. Guyanese in NY CourtThursday, 06 August, 2009

    The Judge allowed the laptop based on the fact that the US authority seized it after it was shipped to the US. At no time did I hear during the Court proceedings that the equipment in question was seized by Guyana police. Guyana360 may not be entirely right, but from the postings it is clear that Woolford jumped the gun without adequate facts. If indeed Woolford reported what he saw or heard, then he should not have reported that the laptop presented in the US Court was the same one the Government claimed it had in its possession. I admire 360 for taking Enrico to task on this one although I know the persons hiding behind the computers are actually fulfilling anti-government agenda.

  4. Uncle Woolford is an admirable man and I think that the disrespect showed by this blog is disrespectful. The postings here along with the Government release on the matter is dangerous and places Mr. Woolford's life in jeopardy.