Home / View Point / Letters to the Editor / Dear Editor: Archie’s issues go beyond possible photoshop; he should declare his innings

Dear Editor: Archie’s issues go beyond possible photoshop; he should declare his innings

“Aside from wondering if he is pursuing legal action as the CJ or as Ivor Archie in a personal capacity, I wonder who will be footing the bill?

“And I have to wonder if the CJ is really that obtuse? […] It is not simply the one issue of whether photos were doctored and misrepresented by someone…”

The following Letter to the Editor on the embattled Chief Justice Ivor Archie was submitted to Wired868 by Mohan Ramcharan of Birmingham, England:

Photo: Dillian Johnson (left), a convicted fraudster, is said to be a friend of Chief Justice Ivor Archie.

I read with interest an article in the Trinidad Express of 6 January 2017, “Pictures were Photoshopped,” which relates to the Chief Justice (CJ).

I am led to understand CJ Archie has taken the first steps toward suing the Express, or settling out of court—subject to certain retractions by the Express that he outlined.

Aside from wondering if he is pursuing legal action as the CJ or as Ivor Archie in a personal capacity, I wonder who will be footing the bill? And I have to wonder if the CJ is really that obtuse?

There are several issues that haunt the CJ. It is not simply the one issue of whether photos were doctored and misrepresented by someone. There is a whole lot more that does not need itemising as it is all in the public domain.  Sadly, the CJ hangs tough to an untenable position, untenable for the following reasons:

  1. Any investigation or proceeding to make the CJ accountable will necessarily involve much deeper prying into his public and private life. Is he ready to open himself to such scrutiny, knowing that the court of public opinion has much harsher judges than his bench peers?
  2. Is he ready to expose his family and friends, colleagues and juniors to the inevitable harsh remarks which will surely follow? Can he mitigate the hurt to family, his reputation and walk away with some dignity intact?
  3. Persisting in his present course of action will no doubt lead to court proceedings. That is a forum where secrets are bared to the bone so to speak. Can he afford to have skeletons out in the open, rattling on a hot tin roof?
Photo: Chief Justice and JLSC chairman Ivor Archie (left) signs a MOU for use of a new automated Case Management Information System. (Copyright Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago)

Now, the issues in the public domain will involve several proceedings at various courts,  in all likelihood. No ‘Marvel’ one shot here. In any of them, he may well earn a pyrrhic victory but the ensuing morass will indeed be not only a shameful day for the country of Trinidad and Tobago but a bitter pill throughout the entire Commonwealth.

Far be it from a little Jiminy Cricket like me to give advice to a legal mind like the CJ’s but, were I in a position to do so, I would advise him to look at the bigger picture, the panorama of the forest and not the trees.

I would paraphrase Dylan Thomas and urge him to go gently into the good night, as wise men at their end know when dark is right.

About Mohan Ramcharan

Mohan Ramcharan is a law student and a student of human nature and culture, who prefers cool logic to emotional ranting. A Trinidadian living in England, he observes the world through two lenses—and strives to share both views in his writing.

Check Also

Living Law: Do you really know what your rights are? The link between the law and what we say and do

What is a right? Rights are such a fundamental thing; everybody has them and governments …

271 comments

  1. So people we can now ask for another discussion on one that speaks of the Gillian Lucky story. Let’s see if the owner of this site man enough to divert from the vilification of the cj. Black lives matter.

  2. I can’t find facts (“There is a whole lot more that does not need itemising as it is all in the public domain.”) or a coherent argument or opinion here. Just a prejudiced and prejudicial stream of words. I’m surprised it’s published.

    • But sufficient for the Law Association to refer the facts in the public domain for consideration by two outside lawyers.. I think some issues are being coflated here. First the sexuality or alleged sexualty or as Americans say the credidle allegations of Sexuality of Archie. Another is politics and race. The facts need to be investigated. Some for reasons best known for themselves wish to either exculpate or condemn Archie . As for Marcus and his freemason letter. Why did he receive a judgeship in his dotage. We are all profane and stupid eh

    • So says ChristopherLewis or Barack Obama?

  3. In TT it is not take down a black man it is forever take down any man or woman who have quietly, performed and achieved any position, and until that changes we will forever be in this mess

  4. I guess I will be causing more uproar if I call for the head of Gillian Lucky. http://www.trinidadexpress.com/20180106/news/cj-asks-lucky-to-help-fraudster-friend

    Why?

    The unlucky Lucky has placed herself in a position where she appears to have misconducted herself in her office, exposed herself in a manner where she is possibly open to ‘suggestions’ not only from the CJ but also from Romero and others. A judge is supposed to be independent, a staunch defender of the Constitution and the laws of the land, an officer of the courts, but here we have a judge whose integrity is already questionable. Judges cannot even appear to be partial, much less leave themselves exposed to opportunities for their opinions to be influenced.

    Additionally, this obviously is another reason why Archie has to resign immediately! Archie is the judge’s ‘boss’ and for him to put his junior in such a vulnerable position is probably a first in the entire Commonwealth. At least, this is the first time I’m hearing of a situation like this, and I’ve been following up legal news for years. Archie is also the Head of the JLSC, so if Lucky has to be disciplined for misconduct in office, the very man who initiated the misconduct is the one to discipline her?! Something wrong with that scenario right there.

    The more this situation unfolds, the deeper the quagmire that Archie is sinking in.

  5. My concern is whether or not he (CJ) solicited favours for the person in the pic or any other persons, be they of repute or of ill-repute? Has He?

  6. Forever trying to take down a black man. The thought of a black man holding that position makes many people including the house slaves very uncomfortable but you know what I say to them, live with it or kick rocks.

  7. Photoshopped and his shadow is on the wall. Then who took the picture. The pic at the poolside also show the same laptop. If yuh Berlin yuh Berlin it’s your rectum

  8. For them to go this far and come up with another angle to target him means he is a great obstacle to them also shows how dangerous they are

  9. In my untrained opinion the issue isn’t whether he is homosexual, bisexual or unfaithful…the issue is whether he has exposed himself to blackmail and other nefarious activities by the people with whom he associates. Has he exposed himself to misbehavior in public office by paying for his associations with this individual be it in cash or time. I hope that whatever investigations are being carried out will be fair.

  10. Lasana this whole controversy is nothing short of a complete embarrassment to the country. In my humble opinion I think Chief Justice should do the honorable thing and step down. Our Judiciary desperately needs stability now, more than ever.

  11. Justice Archie DO NOT HELP ANY LOW LIFE. Friend or Foe they can be easily bought. for a fist full of dollars.

  12. He should sue Johnson for lying on him .

  13. What would the effect be on ongoing cases were CJ to resign?

    • The CJ doesn’t have an active docket of cases as a magistrate or judge would, all he hears are matters on appeal, and he would do so as part of a panel of justices, not by himself. In that regard, if he were to resign then the other justices would continue to hear the matters before them in his absence.

  14. I thought I’d receive a serious argument. Instead he argues he should vacate office because taking legal action will leave him open to be shamed.
    We don’t even know if he will pursue action to that extent. He may be assuaged by the Express simply printing his experts’ claim. And shamed by what? That he is homosexual? Bisexual?
    Waste o’ time. That isn’t anything embarrassing.

  15. A very valid point has been raised here. In what capacity the allegations against Archie are being defended. Does the allegation arise under the colour of his office, as say in the case of Marcia’s appointment or disappointment or has it arised collaterally to the body of Archie as Chief Justice?

  16. Allyuh see dis ting call LAW? It eh ah easy ting to understand, and de most smartest man on de street is usually ah ignoramus when it come tuh de law. Buh de ting is, if one man living alone on ah island, he eh need no law except tuh survive. Watch dat Tom Hanks’ film, “Cast Away”, tuh see wha ah talkin’ bout. Buh once anedder man or ‘oman’ set foot on dat island, de rules change. Now yuh boy on de Rock have tuh tink about how tuh geh along wid de interloper. Dey have tuh make rules about sharing – space, food, resources etc. Den dey have tuh make sure dat one man fish or fowl eh get tief by de odder. And if he get tief out, what he could do about it. One man might be a castaway, buh two go be a society forming. So dey need rules, or law tuh name it right, tuh survive and tuh protect dey own interests.

    Dat is de basis ah laws. To protect and tuh allow people tuh live together in peace. Buh here is de real ting. Law arong since man learn how tuh talk and make fire, or maybe even before. Dat eh surprising. Wha’ surprising doh, is dat is only in de last 150 to 200 years, dat ting like slavery and chile marriage become taboo. Before dat, if yuh check yuh facts, yuh will see dat it was okay tuh have slaves, beat dem, rape dem, stone dem, make chile wid dem, and same fuh chile brides.

    Buh humans have ah cognitive ability. Ah mean dey could tink and reason. And somewhere dong de line in recent times, some tinkers puh de idea forward dat we evolve beyond dis base and crass behaviour. So we make changes tuh society, de law and we progressing. Except for dinosaurs, who as we know, couldn’ really adapt farse enough tuh change. Dat is why we have oil. (De funny ting is dat de places wid de oil is also de places slowest tuh change).

  17. Does Wire review submissions for publication for both relevance and redundancy? Because this latest letter adds very little substance to the ongoing discussion. It merely piles on with supposition, to wit: the CJ should abandon legal recourse as it will only result in him having to lay bare his private cupboards. That’s grounds for him to “declare his innings?”

    • I take it that the premise of the letter is Mohan believes that, even if the CJ wins this case, he thinks that the battle could further damage his position.
      It is not about whether I agree or disagree as much as whether I think that is a point worthy of being discussed. Clearly many do think there is something to discuss.
      Some say it is nonsense, others that it is valid. If 100 percent of readers said either “yes” or “no”, only then would it be redundant.

      • Lasana, I might not have been clear, for which I apologise. The CJ has had several major ‘missteps’ going far back, all of which have been aired already. I saw no reason to rehash them, although I referred to them indirectly. But they must be considered in the overall context.

        The main point of the letter, which many commenters avoided or missed, is that the CJ is bringing his OFFICE into disrepute. To those who separate the man from the office, I think will be making a fallacious and disingenuous argument – the CJ has influence simply because he is the CJ, and he cannot act in a ‘personal’ capacity even if he tries. Saying, “Ey, Archie here. Ah sending a fella fuh a wuk, help him nah.” is about as separate as trying to part the man from his own skin. But clearly the commenters do not recognise this.

        The second point which I didn’t see the need to ‘read and spell’ for the readers of your blog, is that Archie must be prepared for other things to come to light. If he thinks his behaviour is exemplary, all is fine, but what if it isn’t? I clearly asked if he is prepared to put his reputation and his family’s comfort (for the want of a better word) on the line. I am of the view that more is hidden still than was revealed so far.

        Still, the overall damage done to the office of the CJ is significant. People who are defending him claiming he did nothing wrong simply aren’t aware of the judicial mess he has started. I think those 53 people so charged will disagree that he is blameless, not when they have to have matters restarted, spend more time behind bars, expend more financial outlay, etc etc.

        Looking at this from a layman’s perspective simply isn’t going to cut it, though the ethical aspects ought to be clear even to the most rabid defender. To truly understand the scale of Archie’s transgressions, one must have some deeper knowledge of the law, the separation of powers and the rule of law, and how they mesh yet stand independently.

      • Lasana,

        I might not have been clear, for which I apologise. The CJ has had several major ‘missteps’ going far back, all of which have been aired already. I saw no reason to rehash them, although I referred to them indirectly. But they must be considered in the overall context.

        The main point of the letter, which many commenters avoided or missed, is that the CJ is bringing his OFFICE into disrepute. To those who separate the man from the office, I think will be making a fallacious and disingenuous argument – the CJ has influence simply because he is the CJ, and he cannot act in a ‘personal’ capacity even if he tries. Saying, “Ey, Archie here. Ah sending a fella fuh a wuk, help him nah.” is about as separate as trying to part the man from his own skin. But clearly the commenters do not recognise this.

        The second point which I didn’t see the need to ‘read and spell’ for the readers of your blog, is that Archie must be prepared for other things to come to light. If he thinks his behaviour is exemplary, all is fine, but what if it isn’t? I clearly asked if he is prepared to put his reputation and his family’s comfort (for the want of a better word) on the line. I am of the view that more is hidden still than was revealed so far.

        Still, the overall damage done to the office of the CJ is significant. People who are defending him claiming he did nothing wrong simply aren’t aware of the judicial mess he has started. I think those 53 people so charged will disagree that he is blameless, not when they have to have matters restarted, spend more time behind bars, expend more financial outlay, etc etc.

        Looking at this from a layman’s perspective simply isn’t going to cut it, though the ethical aspects ought to be clear even to the most rabid defender. To truly understand the scale of Archie’s transgressions, one must have some deeper knowledge of the law, the separation of powers and the rule of law, and how they mesh yet stand independently.

    • Lasana respectfully, I think you’re displaying your bias in this matter. Here are the three points proffered in defense of the position that Archie should discontinue legal recourse:

      “1. Any investigation, or proceeding to make the CJ accountable will necessarily involve much deeper prying into HIS public and private life. Is he ready to open HIMSELF to such scrutiny, knowing that the ‘court of public opinion’ has much harsher judges than bench peers?

      2. Is he ready to expose HIS family and friends, colleagues and juniors to the inevitable harsh remarks which will surely follow? Can he mitigate the hurt to family, HIS reputation and walk away with some dignity in tact?

      3. Persisting in his present course of action will no doubt lead to court proceedings. That is a forum where secrets are bared to the bone so to speak. Can HE afford to have skeletons out in the open, rattling on a hot tin roof?”

      The letter has nothing to do with potential harm to the office of the CJ or the judiciary. You have espoused that position in the past and it is through those lenses that you chose to view the submission. That is your right to hold such bias, but let’s not pretend that the bias does not exist, or pretend that this letter was published because it offered “a point worthy of being discussed.”

      • It is obvious that Nigel and Kwesi don’t understand the seriousness of the position Archie finds himself in. They argue as laymen, and though there is nothing wrong with that, these issues go beyond what they see and understand. The relevance of the matters are deeply entrenched in LAW and without legal training and knowledge they merely mouth ‘rumshop logic’, according to the President.

    • Nigel S. Scott, I won’t refuse to publish something because you don’t like it or think it relevant. Others do think it relevant. The Letters page aims to give readers a chance to share their views formally. Once those views are in good taste, we publish what we can.

    • Lasana, stop playing smart with foolishness. I would like to think that all of my contributions in this group have been in furtherance of elevating the discussion. It is insulting to me to suggest that I am commenting to have you stop publishing stories “because [I] don’t like it.” That is nonsense, and you know it.

      If you disagree with the positions I take then by all means, refute them. But don’t trivialize them. It is fine for others to do so but you as an administrator have a greater responsibility. Not only that you also double as editor and publisher of Wired868. It is irresponsible to suppress contributions which legitimately call your own partiality into question.

      My initial question stands, as to whether submissions are reviewed for relevance and redundancy. You first stated that if the submission offer something worthy of being discussed they will be published. Now you state that as long as they’re in good taste they will also be published. In short, relevance and redundancy are not considered.

    • Nigel S. Scott, I’m not trying to trivialise your comments and I don’t see it as an insult. You don’t think the letter was relevant. That is subjective. But I’m not attacking you.
      I can admit that sometimes I might not think a column or letter really adds much myself. But I try not to choke anyone else’s ideas. And sometimes I’m pleasant surprised by the level of discourse that a topic sparks.
      Just as I think this has started a really productive talk. And the point is to start intelligent conversation. So I think this blog was worth it.
      There are times that I don’t think some of MY OWN blogs are meaty enough. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I’m pleasantly surprised there too.
      The entire “Live Wire” column, for instance, was a mistake. I never intended to do any such column.
      Relevance and redundancy count but I try not to be the sole arbiter of that. I also have Earl Best who offers counsel there and we decide together–although not in this case.
      If I had to give any credo for Wired868, it would be “provoke thought” and “start intelligent conversation”. It doesn’t matter if it is a sport or news story.
      Anything that does neither should not be in Wired868.

    • ” You don’t think the letter was relevant. That is subjective. But I’m not attacking you.”

      That isn’t what you said… you said you will won’t refuse to publish something because I don’t like it. My comments in response to the letter has nothing to do with whether I personally “like” what is submitted/published or not. I accept that it may not have been intended as an “attack”, but how is misrepresenting my position in that manner not trivializing my contribution?

      At any rate, my initial question was answered. Thank you.

    • Lasana I know better than to talk to “Jumbie.”

    • “They argue as laymen, and though there is nothing wrong with that, these issues go beyond what they see and understand. The relevance of the matters are deeply entrenched in LAW and without legal training and knowledge they merely mouth ‘rumshop logic’, according to the President.”

      So rather than seem dismissive of Jumbie’s comment, I didn’t have the time earlier to respond, but now even with the benefit of a window of time on my side… I’m not even sure how or *if* I should even bother responding. Suffice to say that he is incorrect in a number of assumptions being made w/r/t my perspective.

  18. 4 years and we still waiting to find out the alleged Minister smoking ganga, and plant like substance in former PM KPB home. Who investigating the CJ case, the same TTPS? That’s laughable. So many PEOPLE in T&T with skeletons in their closet. There is not a NEWSPAPER with enough pages if all is revealed about persons. They hounding Archie out of office, by any means necessary. I thought I was reading the Bomb or sleazy Mirror weekly ,not the Express. Do they have an Editor? I think not, since they have been integral in denigrating the CJ through its Newspapers, Its working for someone.

  19. And this issue benefits me and my people how ? Exactly . No matter the outcome its irrelevant to our community issues . Would he be under attack if it were a woman on his bed ? Stupes

    • It has nothing to do with whether there is a man or woman in his bed. But some people have sidetracked the issue and now some only see the salacious aspects of it.

    • Whether it is a man or woman is not the point. It is Infidelity because he is married.

    • Freedom of choice ok but, not Infidelity.

    • Are you for real?

      You need to learn how human rights are applied and how justice is administered, then see why this applies to you and every single person in the community?

    • How you know this is true stueppps, ppl love to believe in lies

    • I wasn’t thinking about infidelity either to be honest. I was thinking about whether he used his office to get favours (house, etc) for a friend–which would be a conflict of interest.
      And whether he is bringing his office into disrepute by virtue of his friendship with a convicted fraudster who appears to be the subject of ongoing police investigations.

    • Lasana Liburd has correctly identified the issue….He could sleep with a bull…. and most people wouldn’t give a shit

    • Mark, I almost pointed out that nobody ever called for an inquiry into whether previous office holders were in fact too close to animals. But I wouldn’t want to distract from more serious matters. 😉

    • I think that most ppl are missing the big picture. DJ claimed that the CJ hired persons to kill him after ppl became suspicious of their relationship. It was only then that DJ came out n started releasing pics.
      The CJ is now more concerned about what the public thinks of his sexual status. Smh
      Btw he his bringing the office he holds into disrepute, one “misstep” too many.
      IK seems to be taking up the fight to get him out.

    • Err….which animals????Dogs,cats,horses, goats????????Am asking for a friend?

    • Lasana Liburd , Surindra Basdeo and others in the chat , interesting conversation . Persons holding that office are guided by a constitution ( some code of ethics) agreed ? Lets forget the thousand misteps of other public officials ( Ministers , MP’ s , PM’s , AG’ s etc) has he infringed on any of these rules of conduct and how ? Nothing else matters ! As much as I don’t like the witch hunt that is being led by these ” MORAL AND GODLY” members of our country who somehow only see justice through one eye , he should have known better . So I guess i’m agreeing with Lasana . Thosands of cheap guns for hire in the country but the CJ chooses a gunman who can’t shoot to kill you ! ANOTHER CASE OF WASTING MY TIME ! This country is ridiculous

    • Theresa Conliffe Especially if your face reminds them of a distant relative LOL.

    • The only question here is has anything been remotely PROVEN that rises to the legal jusitification outlined in the constitution for the removal of the CJ. If no…this convo is a total waste of time.

      • Earl Best

        And what about the dictum, Nigel, about Caesar’s wife? Doesn’t a CJ have to be above suspicion? Don’t these allegations, so far unrefuted, raise questions thst make you uncomfortable? If your answer is in the negative, I admire your sang-froid but I confess that I do not share it.

        I have to say that I find the CJ’s silence, to use a modern word, concerning.

    • Exactly Nigel Tyrell P. Reid .

  20. The CJ asked Lucky to assist with legal advice and financial assistance for someone else not Johnson

  21. Dillian Johnson is now under protection and has handed over his phone. If he is successful in his asylum application, that should say a lot

    • And of course, the ORIGINAL Photos are on the Phone !

    • I didn’t process the application Nigel S. Scott

    • Which is why we should stop with the “he applied for asylum” as though that in of itself has any meaning or bearing.

    • well if you don’y have visibility of his application, you then acknwoledge that its mere acceptace that would actually say exactly nothing on any of this…?

    • Do you know for a fact, Kwesi Prescod? What we’ve been told is he applied for asylum in the UK and he has handed over his phone, it is now in the hands of the UK authorities.

    • Savitri, YOU said “If he is successful in his asylum application, that should say a lot”

      then YOU said “[you] didn’t process the application”

      So if YOU admit that you didn’t process the application, then YOU admit that you don’t know what is his basis for seeking asylum. If YOU don’t KNOW the basis for seeking asylum then YOU are (unknowingly?) admitting that even if he got asylum. YOU would have NO further indication of the validity of the accusation of the CJ….

      I’m not espousing fact. I am extending your own arguments to their logical conclusion. Say thanks nah 😉

    • The reasons you can seek asylum in the UK is all public, which do you think applies to him?
      https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

    • so you are ASSUMING the basis for his application. Are your ASSUMPTIONS fact? Come better than that nah.. try again.;)

    • Savitri, Kwesi’s point, which I agree with, is that you are relying on ignorance as a defense (“I didn’t process the application”), while failing to accept that the position on which you rely (his application for asylum/success will prove substantial in answering the larger question of Archie’s conduct) is also founded on the same ignorance. You don’t know for fact that he has applied for asylum, nor do you know the merits of any such application.

    • Nigel S. Scott, read again: “…What we’ve been told is he applied for asylum in the UK and he has handed over his phone, it is now in the hands of the UK authorities.”

    • but you also said “If he is successful in his asylum application, that should say a lot”

      which is not true. Don’t duck now. Own it.

    • Savitri, read again:

      “Dillian Johnson is now under protection and has handed over his phone. If he is successful in his asylum application, that should say a lot”

      Do you know for fact that he’s under protection? If his asylum petition is granted, what, from actual knowledge, do you think that would have to do with his phone?

    • “To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

      This persecution must be because of:

      your race
      your religion
      your nationality
      your political opinion
      anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation”

      On what basis could he succeed? Sexual orientation? Are gays and lesbians persecuted in TnT?

    • Sigh..Kwesi, who ducking? You just can’t accept the fact that the CJ is the third highest official in TT and it appears as if he’s up to no good..looks like on taxpayers money too

    • Whatever reason he uses, I’m sure he’ll have an answer within 6 months

    • okay now you’re fabricating. Nowhere has public money even been mentioned in this instance. So now you creating fiction to validate your ire. That’s not healthy…it’s actually a bit schizophrenic!

      you know wherepublic money was mentioned? When a sitting PM took a family member on international trips, paid for their ticket with PUBLIC MONEY, paid for their accommodation with PUBLIC MONEY and paid for their discretionary per diem (i.e. money in your pocket) with PUBLIC MONEY…and never bothered to have that family member on the payroll of the state.

      THAT was open theft of public money. I await for your sustained ire there…and for somebody to act in the public interest and recover the funds and jail all persons who sought to validate such misbehaviour in public office.

    • Word on the ground is that Mr Johnson is well know to both sides of the political fence and there a lots of stories to be told, but as usual the MEDIA prints selectively. The ordinary man in the street knows the true story of this whole imbroglio while the ‘so call” literates and intellectuals throw darts at each side of the political puppetry. Take off your blinders people. Its political hounding aided and abetted by the Express ‘sleazy’ Newspaper. Really so low they reach. Allegations, defamation, slander and denigrating someone character based on an ex con word. How come the Express was so quick to believe him and not the CJ? For the pass 2 months Denyse Renne has been on this CJ story, She dropped the bombshell, and has since made some corrections to the some of the original stories, ( I call that a lack of journalistic integrity) its sensationalism.. More importantly, how do you rebuild a persons reputation, after character assassination?

    • Wait until Mr Johnson’s involvement in big wasa scandal buss out!!! If it comes out eh

  22. Is it illegal though for a judge to ask favours for persons,convicted or otherwise?

  23. Stupid man, you should have had him hired as a member of your security detail…….not so smart for an engineer or lawyer eh !

  24. No one read the story with Gillian Lucky too? She confirmed he asked favours

  25. going after members of d legal fraternity is like trying to out Lara with ah full toss.dem brothers kno dey shit.it go be ah long long time to remove he.

  26. Where will this stop? The CJ is approaching this well. All allegations thus far have been debunked. Judges said he never told them to hire Dillard Johnson and Moonilal said.he.never received any request from the CJ for any house for anyone. The pics are circulating and he has done the correct thing by getting forensic evidence . This reeks of a conspiracy and if left untreated then.any public.official can fall prey to plots like this

  27. Lasana… I respect you as a journalist and your quest for truth especially as shown on the fifa issues..but I find on wired I only seeing the opinion articles that questioning Archie being posted. I not seeing his denials and i not seeing an article where you reached out to him and he refuse to answer your questions.

    • We don’t have a news arm Kion. We cover sport in that way but we only use opinion pieces and columns otherwise. There are no Wired868 reporters to contact the CJ–not that I’d expect us to succeed in getting a comment where every news house in the country and even the Law Association has failed.
      Now what we can promise is that we will never block or refuse to publish a Letter to the Editor that takes an opposing view, in the same way that we will not delete your comment which will be published on this story. I can show you many, many examples of that.
      If you’d like to send us a Letter to the Editor, we will publish–once it is publishable. Similarly, you can have someone else articulate those views.

    • Ok I understand what you mean.

    • Beginning before the Marcia Ayers-Caesar fiasco, and still continuing, the CJ has been involved in controversy after controversy. For anyone who knows the parameters of the Rule of Law, they would understand the many breaches committed by Archie in respect of moral and ethical behaviour, even as the legal position he finds himself in becoming more and more untenable.

      Lately, I realise that the Rule of Law is severely handicapped, as it is more of an ‘honour code’ and can be ignored willy-nilly as in Archie’s case, and there is no enforceability of the moral and ethical codes touted by so many. Flying in the face of ‘justice’, Archie has simply ignored everyone who calls for an account of his behaviour, feeding off the public’s ‘blood’ all the while, like the afore-mentioned tick. What we need is a damn good anti-tick pesticide.

    • For someone who doesn’t have a news arm wired is sure using social media to tarnish people’s image. Once again gutter journalism hiding behind quest for the truth. Black lives matter.

  28. Can Archie tell us how Johnson could have gotten hold of his images in order to do a photo shop? Can Archie tell us if Johnson accompanied him to Guyan, in what capacity and at whose expense? Can Archie tell us if his ”experts” had access to original photos or did they do their ANALysis using newspaper copies?

  29. For me, the issue was always about whether the Chief Justice was fraternising with someone known to the police and seeking favours for that same person that could constitute a conflict of interest.
    That is the issue Roxanne Coutou and Kwesi Prescod. Not photos or a possible gay relationship.
    It would be the same if his “friend” was a woman.

    • and the seeking favours angle has been debunked.

      also, if he is an ex-con, shouldn’t we consider the “ex” part? The man served his time. At least that’s how we treat ex-car thieves, other ex-ne’erdowells.

    • Kwesi, Dillian was said to be under investigation in other serious matters. If Kamla Persad-Bissessar as PM had photos with a man who was a person of interest in more than one ongoing police investigations, I think you would have a problem with that.
      Who debunked the “seeking favours angle?” As far as I know Archie has not responded to LATT.
      Archie has to debunk that himself fellah. Not through third parties.

    • there links to that below.

      and Kamla had her share of rumoured trysts with persons who meysteriously became wealthy under her tenure. I was a casual oberver for each…and don’t recall the sustained demand that she resign.

      heck, we have a sitting Chariman of a Regional Corporation with an outstanding question regarding misbehavour on an aircraft, to bolster the accusations of seeking sexual services in exchange for HDC houses, and a long history of mafesance in adminsitration that goes back to his days at UWI where he was forced to demit office. A stronger case for someone being disqualified from public office can hardly be made…but he’s still the Chair of a Regional Corporation. Where are the exposes and calls for resignation?

    • Kwesi if you missed the condemnation of Kamla and Glen, you really don’t pay close attention to the news or have a really selective memory.
      In fact, I think the former case was dealt with by ethics committee and the latter went to the police.

    • They were condemned….yes. But for three months? No.

      In any case, I was just really respnding to wy I remain no more than a “Casual observer” to these “Young & Restless” like stories.

  30. The statement that “experts” declare the picture to be doctored is not only taking the public to be asses but shows the length “the brotherhood” will go to protect one of their own. I also have many years involvement in photoshop and declare that the picture above is not a doctored one. That statement is a deception to protect their own interest.

    • The leader of the ” brotherhood ” came out and says CJ is not a member.

    • Should I believe him? Can’t he lie as everyone else does? This whole affair is one big conspiracy and stink to the Judiciary!

    • It is conspiracy to people who are on the low and looking for company. Some people have more to loose on the Global stage.So Conspiracy is for the home rabblers..

    • Soooo i have extensive experience in photoshop i use it every day….and i laugh scandalously when ppl claim because they know photoshop they can tell.when a photo is doctored. Hogwash. Someone with truly excellent editing skills can doctor a photo and u will never tell the difference just by looking at it.

      Secondly and more importantly whether it is the CJ or not is irrelevant that is his own business and it DOES NOT rise to the legal reasons outlined in the CONSTITUTION for the removal of the CJ.

      • Earl Best

        Nigel, I know zilch about photoshopping and stuff of that sort so I make no comment on your first paragraph.

        Paragraph Two, however, sats that it’s “irrelevant” whether ir not the person in the photo is the CJ. Are you serious? Your CJ can, when he is on official business in another country, consort with whomsoever he likes and you’re okay with that?

        Trump should hire you to lecture to Mueller–and I deliberately refrain from making any arguably unfunny jokes about words that rhyme with the Special Investigator’s name.

    • You’re a joker and was paid perhaps to print that piece of foolishness by the same group that is trying to make the public into asses. I don’t care if you use Photoshop 24-hours for the last decade, that photo was not doctored, so you can carry on, your thirty pieces of silver is waiting to be collected.

    • Lots of Animals around with the distinct cross on their backs. Read the comments.

  31. it is notable that the author of the piece doesn’t consider that if the pictures ARE doctored, the question arises as to WHO doctored them, and WHY were they doctored.

    That they were doctored suggests a concerted effort by parties to unseat the CJ (the WHY). If we are not aware of the objectives of those parties, why should we fall prey to their manipulations willingly. For that reason alone, were I the CJ, I would resist the calls to resign. For that reason alone, I as a casual observer, can give little merit for arguments that the CJ should resign because somebody against him. We should start to focus on who is the somebody.

    • That is IF they were doctored.

    • “Casual observer”…….. You have to be joking. Look now even Lucky in the ” wine an jam now”

    • but the author seems to suggest that even IF they were doctored, the CJ should resign. I find that argument ridiculous

    • I remain a “Casual observer” because up to now no substantive breach of law or ethics mentioned has stood up to scrutiny. That’s why we started off with a claim to change Judge security – which was then debunked by the majority of judges at the meeting. Then it was getting an HDC house improperly – which was then debunked by Moonilal himself. Then it’s the photographs….which are now being challenged. And now it’s some vague attempt to suggest something involving Gillian Lucky. With the hit rate of this story, this is going to turn out to be nothing.

      This is scattershot persecution where rumour is reported as fact, then debunked – serially….that’s not good journalism.

    • No argument here, CJ is in disrepute of his office and must go ! I even wonder if he were of other “class/association” if the voices would have been louder !

    • I would say the photographs have nothing to do with the substantive matter at all. And now why it is “scattergun persecution”? Because you are talking about arguments made by about a dozen different people as though it were coming from a single source. It’s not.
      Some people have held the high road. Others not so much.

    • “some people” would include the CJ, not so? It’s scattergun because the accusations keep morphing, hoping for something to stick. the only consistency in the accuasations is that somebody out for the public to turn against the CJ and ask him to reign.

      When Manning followed the Constitution we claimed he was hounding a person out of office. Here, the wider media is being irresponsible, but it’s not hounding?

    • Kwesi, the CJ has taken the high road by refusing to respond to the LATT? Archie was born Chief Justice? His mammy or daddy gave him that title?
      That’s the only reason I can think of that he shouldn’t have to answer questions by anyone.

    • Or that the questions asked were irrelevant to their role.

      IF I challenged you on publicly on the propriety of what you gave your daughter for XMas, would you respond?

    • Well said Kwesi. No evidence has been given to demonstrate that through CJ has breached the public trust in any way. He should not be called to answer spurious charges simply because someone decided to dream them up. These allegations are all circumstantial, leading up to an as yet undiscerned conclusion. Precisely what is the CJ being accused of doing?

    • Kwesi the LATT’s questions were comparable to asking his Christmas list? That’s a ridiculous analogy.
      And I may or may not listen to any question you had for me. But if you were on my board of directors, I’d be minded to treat your questions differently.
      So it is a matter of whether he respects the Law Body at all.
      I think Archie’s stunning lack of respect for his peers might be unprecedented, even in our climate of runaway leaders.
      That would make you an enabler. Hope you would have no problem if your MP treated you that way if you raised a question within your community.

    • the LATT is NOT The board of directors of the Judiciarjy. So just as you may not listen to my (admittedly) ridiculous questions, then he has similar discretion.

      the LATT should focus its energies on what it CAN opine and act upon…like the behaviour of attorneys who knowlingly represent dead men, withhold the awards granted by the Courts from their clients, improperly store Court documents and lodge affidavits that they know to be false.

      the LATT should treat with that malfeasance, which sits squarely in their jurisdiction. Leave the conduct of the CJ to the party that does have jursidiction over the matter – the President.

    • Kwesi I’d say the CJ and LATT have symbiotic relations.
      But I think we have exhausted our points on the matter. People can draw their own conclusions.

    • nope…the CJ has authority without LATT. the CJ oversees the adminsitration of the Justice system. LATT oversees the behaviours of attorneys. They are no symbiotic.

      but agreed. points are exhausted (although I take umbridge in your claim that I am an enabler of anything, simply because I don’t buy into witch hunts as quickly as you do)

      Still waiting for LATT to do their ACTUAL job though 😉

    • Kwesi Prescod You’re the smartest person in this link Mr Prescod. I’m always amazed at how supposedly smart people pontificate on utter twa under the guise of being learned persons. Chat on hypocrites!

  32. Now, I’m wondering as to whether CJs Judgments are to become cause for Appeal of some/certain matters !

  33. Roxanne,it’s not that simple.The CJ is a married man and a public official holding high office in the country. Were he to become embroiled in extra marital activities that involve male or female , a negative effect on his tenure could be the result. Blackmail,could be one of the negative effects.He might be forced to give wrong judgements based on the dirt other persons may have on him etc. At the same time those prosecuting this matter,newspapers et al,need to be very careful in their pronouncements.

    • What does that have to do with him performing his duties as cj half ah them in high office horning left right and center and that is ok pure bs

    • Sadly,you don’t get it Roxanne.

    • Well it’s more worrying that the relationship is with a convict and he may have used his influence as CJ, as well as dabbled in public funds etc. That’s where my issue lies.

    • The issue is that he may or may not have been using his position as CJ to get this said person preferential contracts.

    • There are no contracts to GET though. Judges do not receive state sponsored protection of any kind. Police are the ones who provide security of it is needed and they are the ones who make that determination, not the CJ.

    • How many other Ministers past and present are involved in similar lifestyle and it was never made public, who rented rooms in the Hyatt for their private use. People talk There are also alleged paedophiles among them, The CJ is being used as the scape goat. Is this correct info about the CJ or ,,,,,,,,gram?. Bacchanal country The question to be asked, is has the CJ been ineffective or incompetent in his duties? I will have to say no. God will judge him accordingly, This is political hounding by some who should look in the mirror

    • Lance Noel I get ur point, but a lot of this hype has to do with the alleged gay relationship.

    • The gay matter has been shoo shooed about for a long time. This situation presents an opportunity for it to be talked about in the open.

    • Rosanna Glasgow,the judiciary is in a mess,my pet peeve though is the law association has been silent on a lot of alleged indiscretions within recent times.The association seems not to be too interested in improving the broken judicial system.

    • Rossana I will admit that we don’t have all the details on this matter. But there is enough here to raise some serious questions, and so I can’t say for sure that he’s not incompetent, if only because, if there is some level of interference on his part, then to me, his impartiality is in question. Judges answer to no one. What does that tell you about how safe he feels about his actions? What does that indicate about his integrity in light of these allegations? Too many questions unanswered.

    • Judges answer to the JLSC. Stop making shit up and stating it as facts….

    • Cate Young I didn’t state it in my comment, and I should have. My comment on judges answering to no one was made by a judge, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh. That’s how they see themselves – I didn’t make it up. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however, can you kindly refrain from using this type of language? It’s distasteful, when taking tone into account. Moreover, you seem to be making my point, particularly because the CJ is the head of the JLSC. Lasana Liburd

    • The law Association lacks independence with the top UNC lawyers at the helm. the gay relationship is now the issue, since this story began the CJ has been accused of so many things with no evidence, We are always told that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the plan was to light a fire and other on social media and the media will run with it , the perpetrators hounding the CJ in the background laughing as people play party politics. Wake up people, the idea is to get rid of the CJ, who you think next? Some who have laready been targeted, Smith , Cudjoe, PM Rowley, Al Rawi, Young, Imbert, etc. Both the government and Opposition MINISTERS have skeletons in their closet, but certain individuals are targeted by persons with their own selfish agendas. Political mischief.

    • Rossana if nobody here is making the “gay” thing an issue then please don’t ventilate that here. Go where they are discussing that and state your points.
      Because it will come across as though you are answering your own concerns.
      The vast majority of people have stated their issues and it has nothing to do with what may or may not be Archie’s sexuality.

    • Nadeera, I apologise for offending your delicate sensibilities with something so crass as the truth. O should have known better than to presume facts had weight here given the ~tone~ of this entire thread. The CJ is indeed broken head of the JLSC however he has no more sway or control than any other members. Again, to republish information that is untrue is….. “excrement” since the 5¢ word so scandalizes you.

    • Lasna you missed my point. I was saying that since the story on the CJ broke, every week is something new by Ms Renn and the gay talk was the new accusation, in addition to a comment by (Dawn and lance). Peoples sexuality is not my business,I don’t judge or speak on it. Lucky name is the new addition to this ongoing story? From all this I ask is why is CJ Archie being hounded out of office?

    • Rossana I’d admit that I have not read every story on it. But I just don’t think there is an assault on his sexuality here. You might at least say “in other places.”

  34. What does the cj sexuality have to do with anything, what the man does in his private time is his business full stop

    • That is a naive outlook. The man is CJ 24 hours a day and he put himself in a position where he has misconducted himself in office for no other reason than he made himself open to manipulation and granting favours.

    • Exactly. To me the issue is his judgement if he actually solicited favors from
      HDC and peers to assist a friend/known felon.

    • Well, for one, if the allegations are true that the CJ is involved in a relationship with a man, we are aware that sodomy is against the law?
      For most other persons, it might be easier to say leave their personal business alone.
      And I believe some citizens might take issue if this gentleman stayed with the CJ in Guyana, when the CJ was on official duties, whether the bill was footed by the taxpayers or not.

    • Here we go again this is a smoke screen and a distraction to something bigger although this is an ugly situation wake up tnt wake up…….

  35. Lasana,the CJ might be guilty as charged,but for a national newspaper to print this photo,telling us that the CJ is the person sitting on the bed,reeks of irresponsibility to me. It may very well be the CJ,but can you tell ,from looking at the pic?

    • Where does that leave the newspapers that published and suggested it was him??

    • To my mind, if the newspapers didn’t doctor the photo themselves and if they tried to confirm from the CJ whether it was him and he ignored them. And if they didn’t say conclusively that it WAS the CJ… I think the newspapers would be just fine.

    • Photoshopped or not ,the pic as published,despite not even showing his face,led the public to believe that the man in the pic is the CJ,how is that fine?

    • Where you led to believe that was the CJ because the Express told you so?
      If you just came across that photo on someone’s news feed with no caption, would you have no clue who that might be?
      Not that either is really relevant. The CJ will have to prove malicious intent, which is that the paper knew it wasn’t him or ought to have known it wasn’t him. Or that the paper recklessly published without trying to ascertain whether it was the CJ.
      If the Express can prove that it made efforts to get a response from the CJ, then I think it gives them a leg to stand on. I’m not saying it is airtight. But it is a defence.
      The other thing… Is that it can’t be libel if it is true. And despite Archie’s own evidence (which might not be independent), the court might well determine that the photos are real.

    • You can’t libel someone with the truth.

    • I would love to the express headline where they said it was Anil in the room smoking weed instead of someone bearing a resemblance with a plant like substance

    • Lasana Liburd so as a publisher you can publish anything someone brings to you. Right? As the publisher, don’t you have a responsibility to verify sources and content? If these pics aw doctored the newspapers will be held accountable !

    • Brian Harry, the Express would have to convince Judge that they genuinely believed the photos were real and why. And that they made an honest and concert effort to get response from CJ.
      Although I’d admit that I’m a Jiminy cricket myself on the law.

    • Lasana Liburd the burden is not in the CJ to prove or disprove. The burden is in you as publisher. Yiu didn’t get them from the CJ so get the verification from your source. If you can’t get it ‘hold your hand’. Verify then publish.

    • The CJ has no need to confirm or deny anything. The onus is on the publisher I independently verify what they are presenting as truth. Because even of they can say that they never conclusively said it was him in the photo, they also have to show that a reasonable person would have come to another conclusion in the specific context of the report. It is prejudicial on its face, and they cannot say it is true and therefore not libelous without definitively proving that it is in fact true.

    • Libel says you must prove malicious intent. So Brian Harry, you think Express will struggle to get their own “forensic” expert to say the photo was not authentic?

    • In any case, I am obviously not the Express. I just gave an opinion as a media practitioner.

    • Lasana Liburd he/she expert must do their job expertly! They too can be challenged. We have seen experts destroyed in courtrooms. Remember Karl and the “forensic pathologist” case

    • Lasana Liburd given that’s your belief and you are my friend, may I humbly suggest and with the deepest of love and respect that your sources are reasonably verified

    • Brian and what makes you think the CJ’s “expert forensic” did his job well? You seem to have started this with certain assumptions.
      Do you even accept that the photo might well be genuine?

    • I always do my utmost to verify my sources. And I’ve sparred with some persons who would not hesitate to teach me some very expensive lessons if I didn’t.

    • Lasana Liburd no I haven’t. I don’t assume that they are beyond reproach. I’m only addressing the responsibility of the publisher piece. The court will decide which expert is more credible .

    • Lasana Liburd what pics the Express published? The only one the paper used was the one with Dillian Johnson with the CJ’s pass around his neck.

    • Sheila thanks. I really was unsure what they were referring to.

    • “And that they made an honest and concert effort to get response from CJ.”

      Lasana, I’m not sure why you keep harping on this. The newspaper’s efforts to get a comment does not in any way have any bearing on whether they can be held liable for defamation. As you correctly stated, the CJ as a public figure would have to prove malice on the part of the newspaper, but assuming he gets over that hurdle, the Express’ efforts, if any, to get a comment from him prior to publication, would not shield them from liability. You can’t get an angle on an incorrect story (for argument’s sake), and print it with the excuse of “well, I give him ah chance to correct it and he eh do it, so I say ‘it muss be true.'”

      As for the proposed battle of the experts… even if the Express could prove that the photos were not doctored, on the face of the evidence presented (the image itself), they also cannot prove that it is the CJ depicted, as the article suggests. So proof of authenticity would do little to establish proof of identity, and thus do little to prove “truth” in defense of any suit for defamation.

    • Lasana Liburd We also published no photos of Whatsapp messages. Pre-action letter seems sloppy and misdirected. Interestingly, did CNC3, which broadcast the pics, receive a pre-action letter?

    • Perhaps selective targeting then.

    • Nigel S. Scott we now know they never used that photo.

    • The CJ was charged? Irresponsibility everywhere.

    • Then was it Anil in room 201 carry on tnt carry on…sad just give me an entire new slate of governance I am tired…..

    • I believe TV6 published photos of whatsapp messages. So perhaps Express House is who they meant.

    • Well I’d expect legal letters to be precise eh Rhoda. But okay. Should that read OCM then?
      I wonder how committed Archie is to this case at all. Time will tell.
      I did see some of Mark Bassant’s questions on TV6 and the only thing he didn’t ask is “What is your favourite thing about Dillion”?
      For all I know… Maybe he DID ask that question too. Lol. I think TV6 missed the boat a bit and leaned too much towards the salacious.
      At least in that segment.

    • I haven’t read the PAPL. TBH Express’ public trial of the CJ has left a sour taste in my mouth since a lot of it relies heavily on salacious elements and there is a whole part of the story that is missing: the links between the people wanting CJ gone and their reasons for it. Thankfully I have friends in the judiciary and some of them are lawyers willing to discuss the Constitution with me.
      My feelings aside, I hope his lawyers have been careful with their responses. I also hope the population is careful to ask the right questions of the stories being put before them.

    • Also, Israel Khan’s outbursts about freemasonry went unchallenged in their pages until today. It is scary what is passing for investigative, balanced journalism where this story is concerned. Particularly when you understand what it means for our democracy.

    • I think the media isn’t doing enough to train the new crop of potential investigative journalists and that’s bad for the country and also bad for the future of the media.
      I haven’t read ALL the stories on this topic. I read Renne’s stuff when this all started and it seemed very focused on whether Archie was using his office to seek favours for a friend–and worse a friend of questionable character.
      To me, that is the story.

    • I will have to read up on the freemasonry thing. Don’t we have enough cliques and tribes to worry about already? Sigh.

    • In the case of friend of questionable character, has the person faced the justice system?
      That said, misconduct in public office is a serious matter and something we should all pay attention to. Whether the court is law or public opinion, I am paying attention to the evidence before me.

    • Notwithstanding the explanation about what Freemasonry is, you are quite right in saying that the Express did not follow proper standards in following up on that one.
      They needed to get or reasonably attempt to get a response from the Freemasons in that first article which quoted Khan. Failing that, they should have gotten one long before Stanley Marcus SC had to turn to the Letters Page to get a word in. That’s extraordinary.

    • Extraordinary? Is that a synonym for fuckery? If so, then we in agreement.

    • Rhoda, as a convicted fraudster, Dillion can’t even hold a post in the TTFA for instance. Which, I know, is ironic and hilarious if you think about it. But there was also the suggestion that he is under investigation right now in another case or two as well.
      That is awkward.
      The conflict of interest concern with relation to the HDC request is there too.
      Those are the two things that I felt needed to be addressed.

    • Yes. Under investigation. As is Ramlogan. Ramdeen and Carmona. And Carrmona still is President and getting remunerated.

    • I will put it this way: If Dillion was accompanying either Kamla or Keithos to foreign trips or generally being their BFF, we’d have problems with either Prime Minister. So why not for the CJ?
      Same for Carmona, Ramlogan and Ramdeen, who are all disgraced as a result anyway.

    • Maybe it has to do with the backstory I heard.
      CJ went off to official trip. DJ follows CJ on trip out of his own pocket. And tags along on trip. I am now not sure what responsibility if any the state has for DJ and I have been told we didn’t pay for his trip.

    • And my source is DJ himself.

    • Every story ive read has implied that the state paid for the trip through innuendo and photo, but never actually stated so because they would never be able to prove it. The CJs travel expenses go through a tedious process that requires Cabinet approval and must name all persons accompanying CJ to be paid for.

    • Rhoda this has been my issue all along. Big news houses like the Express take no responsibility to verify or even do primary research and get things straight before publication. Hey had a hypothesis and it sounded sellable and lazily and simply followed it to this nasty and faulty conclusion.

    • Lemme do that nah?
      In fact maybe I should.
      When I think of the lengths I go to to ensure my facts straight and verifiable and then these ketch ass stories being churned out without consequence. Jah!

    • Rhoda now we have to ask the next level questions – was DJ put up to this ? Who paid him to go? Why? Who gains? What’s the end game? What’s the next salvo – having gone to this length, there might be a back up plan?

    • Brian, I’m interested in the conduct of the Chief Justice. Not Dillion Johnson. If you can prove entrapment, then go after it by all means. But even that won’t excuse CJ if he is guilty of improper use of his office.

    • Lasana Liburd I too am concerned about the CJ conduct. However, in examining his conduct many comments and links have been made and an important probative piece has to be the verification of these links. These are the same links used to make a case for misconduct so how can you say they not connected? It must be relevant to whatever investigation

    • If he tried to get favors for his friend, then it doesn’t matter who introduced him to said friend or who told said friend to check Archie. It would still be just as wrong.

    • Lasana Liburd to examine the conduct of Archie all evidence and sources of evidence have to be examined. Unless we accepting only one side of the story as fact.

    • Brian Harry,like you Ian awaiting an investigation,and LATT

    • Rhoda we are accepting the fact as fact. Check if information is valid. Certainly. When has finding out identity of whistleblowers ever been key to a case?
      Who was Deep Throat? Did America refuse to consider evidence about Nixon until they knew everything about Deep Throat?
      I don’t get that.

    • The identity of whistleblowers? We already know Dillian is a source. His identity is not a secret. Has the information been verified?
      As a simple for example, has anyone checked to see if the flight to Guyane he took was paid for by the CJ? Or whether he had hotel bookings and where?
      In short, basic fact checking.

    • Rhoda well you have to check that your info is correct. That’s not really investigating source. That’s just verifying your info.
      It doesn’t become a non story if CJ didn’t book Dillion’s flight btw. He was on a business trip and not on his personal business so there would still be a story.
      But we would be grateful that at least he didn’t use State funds in that instance.

    • Sorry. Verifying source info is what I meant.
      In this specific instant I am also intrigued by the motivation of the source. If the CJ helped him, why he throw the man under the bus? High integrity about public expenditure?

    • Rhoda Bharath This tidbit seems conspicuously absent from many an ‘analyst.’ But what do you expect from a people who now get their mainstream news from social media.

    • Peoplw just accept that DJ wanna out the CJ because he have integrity? Aaaayyyyee! This place.

    • From the beginning of time, sources have often been close enough to the matter at hand as to be compromised by it. I don’t study the morality of the source really.
      You’re right about the things that need to be fact checked. And that’s what I’d focus on. Being sure the story is accurate.

    • Lasana credibility of sources is always important. Motive and motivation of sources also critical. One cannot investigate without such considerations. Yiu can’t investigate to prove the point you started out assuming so one must examine the full nexus of relationships and the complete package of information

    • Brian it is one of Dole Chadee’s gang members who brought him down. What would your morals tell you to do then?

    • Anyway, that’s your view. Mine is that once the information is credible and can lead to good for the community of country, then it is usable.

    • Lasana how does that address what I said. That persons credibility first had to be established. This story with the cj didn’t start that way. I’m not even sure it’s apples to apples

    • Lasana but now I’m confused. Am I not and haven’t I not been saying that we have to check credibility of information? The other piece I’ve said is that we must examine motive and motivation/incentive . Where did I indicate otherwise ?

    • Brian the only time the credibility of source comes into question is when you’re absolutely desperate as a reporter. And that is when it is one person’s word against another’s.
      I don’t think that is the case in this story. What do you mean that this story started off badly?

    • Brian the credibility of the information is the be all and end all for a journalist.
      Once you start thinking about the other moving pieces and implications, you’re on dangerous ground. If the story is accurate and serves a common good, it is unethical for you to consider anything else because then you might be tempted to self-censor.

    • Lasana so when you get a tip, you don’t question if the source is credible. Ok I accept that as your standard. No further comment from me

    • Brian a credible source can give you a story that puts you in trouble. I know my job sir. It is what you can prove. That’s it. Anything else is a red herring.

    • Lasana the information and the source are linked . I don’t care what kind of inquiry one considers. Journalism is no different to proper scientific inquiry

    • If I’m not being too bold. I think I know a bit about journalism. And there is a reason why we set certain standards. I tried to explain. People who operate in a similar business like mine would probably grasp it easier.
      And by that I mean a business in which you have to gather information from people.

    • Lasana I know nothing about journalism and don’t need to know to make the point I’m making. It’s a simple point. Investigation requires credible information and credible sources. If the original hypothesis is flawed the inquiry can be flawed – that’s all I’m saying. I’m not questioning your knowledge of journalism, I don’t even know where the hell that comes from

    • Brian ok. Let me take it from a different angle. What do you consider a credible source? And what do you do if someone doesn’t meet your standards?

    • Maybe I would better understand what you mean that way.

    • Dude, the credibility of a source does not exist outside the context of the surrounding information. In the case of Dole Chadee, his whistle-blower comrade would be considered a good source because it is presumed he has access to the needed info. But by coming forward he has a motive to save himself so the details he gives are then VERIFIED THE OUGH INVESTIGATION to make sure that he hasn’t simply lied as an incentive to escape prosecution. Dan. Wyd? ?

    • Cate I find your incomprehension amusing. But I’ve done investigative work for about two decades with stories that others were often afraid to touch. And I’ve never been successfully sued or taken to a court room. So I must be doing something right.

    • Being successfully sued or not is hardly an accurate gauge of how you’re doing your job though. IJS

    • Nigel maybe. Maybe not. But I’ve written explosive things about people who are quick to sue and who have won lawsuits against the Media before.
      Anyway to draw a line under this, it doesn’t matter if the person who calls me is Mother Theresa, a total stranger or a drug addict. There is only one thing that matters. And that is whether they can prove what they are saying. That’s it.
      You can be my best friend. I don’t write until there is proof. The identity is totally irrelevant.
      I don’t make moral judgments. I size up the evidence.
      I don’t think I can explain it any better so I’d leave it there.

    • Rhoda Bharath, maybe he wanted the CJ to put a ring on it….

    • Karl Hudson Phillip was successful because of the Judge in the matter