SOMETHING is radically wrong here and it just does not add up, that is, a lone campaigner/protester or what you may want to call him, being hotly pursued and fatally shot. The question is why was he pursued and shot dead? There must be a reason or reasons for such a heinous crime. Now, many of the Opposition charlatans have given their unsubstantiated, biased views as to the motive behind his killing. They have already gone on record as saying that he was ‘assassinated’ for political purposes, the edited versions by some tabloids just stopping short in naming the political party that should be held responsible.

This political assassination reason is an age old claim that opposition forces are known for and for which we well expect them to harp on. They have done it before and they are doing it again and I hasten to say they would be shamefully embarrassed by that theory. Should you turn back the historical pages and you will see this ghastly scheme in action in Linden when those three guys were shot. The theory touted was that the police shot the protesters having been given orders by the Home Affairs Minister.

The subsequent Commission of Inquiry has proven this to be a blatant lie. This was substantiated in the expert testimony of the forensic expert that came in from England. That expert was requested by Nigel Hughes (a name that resurfaces at the Ewing scene also) and company, the government willingly acceded to their demands for independent, foreign personnel, his expenses and accommodation paid for by the government.
They did this unhesitatingly and unreservedly because the government wanted the truth told while at the same time clear its name.
That expert did his forensic research and gave his report, the bullets did not come from the police. This was damning testimony coming from “their” witness, nevertheless, the government in the interest of peace did compensate the relatives of the dead.
Scroll back to the 1997 protest at Mrs Jagan’s election to the Office of President when Donna McKinnon was killed. That year long protest saw the shooting death of a pregnant woman in Regent Street. The dead woman was later transported to the vacant lot near Freedom House when the murderous report was given that she was shot by a bullet coming from Freedom House. One from the ‘spit press’ who was not even present at the scene was heard saying he saw when Mrs Jagan fired the bullet. He did not stop to think that here we had a pregnant woman with nothing constructive to do with her time being caught up in a violent Opposition protest?
He did not stop to think that factual evidence was there showing the woman being shot in Regent Street and not in Robb Street? The rest is history. All hell broke loose after that, all because the devilish lies of the Opposition paid off. For peace, Mrs Jagan had to give up much of her rights as President and her governance marked by great restraint.
In the interest of time I would conclude my argument by asking the following questions:
1. Crum-Ewing was indeed killed by forces who were out to get him, there is no question about that. The point is, who are these men and why did they want him dead?
2. Question number two, we know that the dead man was an ex-officer of the armed forces,
but now he is self-employed. What ‘self employment’ was he engaged in?
3. News of Ewing’s death saw the immediate arrival of Nigel Hughes (well-known character)
in these matters at the scene of crime. The newspaper report states, “his lawyer was
present at the scene”. What matters pending did Ewing had that necessitated legal
counsel, the kind of a Nigel Hughes?
4. Crum-Ewing is a lone protester, who had no crowd – like that of a Walter Rodney – one who
poses no threat to the PPP’C Party. Why would they do harm to a man like that? What is
there to gain from his death?
5. The PPP/C has a track record as a peaceful, people-friendly, people-oriented party; one who
is not associated with thugs and criminals but abhors crime. A main Opposition entity is
known to be in collusion with thugs even conferring national acclaim to one of them. Why
would the PPP/C want to stoop so low to sully its good historical record?
When these questions are given the qualified answer they deserve then and only then can we come to a conclusion.
So, to my learned friends Dr David Hinds and PNC sympathiser/apologist Joe Singh, you should have put your thinking caps on before making those outrageous assumptions.

NEIL ADAMS