Many Grenadians have been saying that there are still many unanswered questions with regard to the events of 19 October 1983. Among these unanswered questions are:

• How did Maurice Bishop die?
• Who killed him?
• Who ordered him killed?

This is a remarkable sentiment given the fact that seven persons have been in prison for the last 16 years on the basis that they executed Bishop and others. And ten others have been in prison for the same time on the basis that they ordered the killing of Bishop.

The talk about unanswered questions shows that people do not believe that the truth emerged out of the Maurice Bishop murder trial. People quite rightly mistrust the evidence presented in court because being a very small community many people in Grenada know that some of the persons who are in jail for shooting Bishop and others or for ordering their deaths are completely innocent.

  Christopher Stroude

Take the case of Christopher Stroude. There are many people who know that Stroude had nothing to do with those deaths. He was not aware that anyone was going to be killed nor was he present when anyone was killed.

Indeed Stroude was under gunpoint as a prisoner of the civilian crowd when the shooting started at Fort Rupert on that tragic day. He too could have been killed in the initial assault.

Yet Stroude has been locked up in prison for the past 16 years for something he is completely innocent of.

Lester Redhead

Lester Redhead is the most dramatic case. The most vicious piece of evidence presented at the trial was against Lester Redhead. One witness described how Redhead shot Bishop and when Bishop fell how Redhead went up to him, took out a knife, cut his throat and then cut off a finger of Bishop which had a ring on it. It is almost impossible to describe a more brutal act than that. Indeed, in July 1991 Redhead was nearly hanged on the basis of this evidence.

And yet there are many people in our community who know that that evidence is a total lie. Many people know that Lester Redhead was not even on Fort Rupert when Maurice Bishop and others were killed.

Like Christopher Stroude, Redhead was a prisoner of the civilian crowd in the Operations Room at Fort Rupert. He was there when the shooting started. He too could have lost his life.

Shortly after the initial firing ceased Redhead, along with one other officer left for Fort Frederick. When the final burst of firing which killed Bishop took place Redhead was on Fort Frederick. He was therefore at least two miles away by road from Fort Rupert, at the moment when Bishop and others were killed. Indeed there are ordinary citizens who saw Redhead on his way back to Fort Frederick.

Redhead is therefore completely innocent of the charge of murder. Yet he was nearly hanged. And he has languished in jail for over 16 years.

Cecil Prime

Cecil Prime, like Redhead and Stroude, was in the Operations Room at the time the shooting started on Fort Rupert. He too was a prisoner of the civilian crowd. He was the other officer who along with Redhead departed Fort Rupert. And he too was at least two miles away by road from the scene of the deaths of Bishop and others at the time they were killed.

Yet Prime has been languishing in prison for over 16 years for something he was no part of.

Dave 'Tan' Bartholomew

Dave Bartholomew is in jail on the basis that he was one of ten persons who ordered that Bishop and others be killed. The evidence against Tan is concocted, and even so ridiculously tenuous.

Like all the other members of the Central Committee, Tan was convicted on the basis of the evidence of one witness. That witness, Cletus St Paul, was the former chief bodyguard of Bishop. He had been arrested on October 12^th 1983, according to him, on the orders of the Central Committee. He therefore clearly had an 'axe to grind' against the Central committee members, including Tan.

St. Paul's evidence was that he was standing in handcuffs at the entrance of Fort Frederick on October 19^th, 1983 when he saw the members of the Central Committee arrive in a great haste. Upon their arrival, St. Paul said, they grouped together for a brief moment right in front of him. He did not hear what they were saying but he saw them shaking their hands and moving their heads. Shortly after that in the presence of others, St. Paul said that one member of the central committee made a short statement to the soldiers that Bishop and others had taken over the Fort and that they must be liquidated. Whereupon St. Paul said the Central committee members shouted 'Central Committee orders!' and the soldiers responded, 'We obey! We obey!'

Tan Bartholomew was convicted of murder because St. Paul called his name as one of those who had arrived at Fort Frederick. But it was easy for St. Paul to call Tan's name. He just had to remember who were the members of the Central Committee and make sure to call their names. At the preliminary inquiry St. Paul had forgotten one name. That person was set free. Tan was not that fortunate.

The fact is that on the morning of October 19^th 1983 Tan was in his home parish of St. Patrick's. There are many people who have been too scared to come forward publicly but who are aware of that. He was therefore not and could not have been on Fort Fredrick standing in front of St. Paul in a group shaking his head. Tan is not the only CC member who was not on Fort Frederick; but his is the most dramatic case because he was not even in St. George's. His misfortune is that he was a CC member and that St. Paul remembered his name.

Liam James

Liam James was another person who was convicted on the basis of the concocted evidence of Cletus St. Paul.

But the crystal truth is that of all the CC members who were at Fort Frederick, James is the one who can honestly claim to be the least responsible for what took place on Fort Rupert for his was the most vigorous voice among those who opposed the sending of troops to Fort Rupert.

And yet James was not only tried and convicted but he was nearly hanged in July 1991. He was one of the five selected to die.

We are clear that some of the 17 must be responsible for the atrocities of October 19^th 1983. But we are equally sure that not all are responsible. We are sure that several are innocent and should never have been charged. Indeed one leading international jurist, former US Attorney General Ramsay Clark, who followed the legal process from its inception, is known to hold the view that only four or five of the seventeen should ever have been charged and tried for the events of October 19^th 1983. But of course in the days following the invasion, justice and law were not the paramount concerns. A fair trial was simply impossible in the circumstances. The amount of innocent persons who were convicted is the best proof of the unfairness of the trial. For no legal process which results in the conviction of people who are innocent can ever be fair.

FREE THE GRENADA 17 NOW!

We, however, support the freeing of all seventeen prisoners. We are committed to working vigorously towards bringing about that result. We believe that this is the way to go. And we will never rest until it happens. Freeing the prisoners would free us as a people from the clutches of October 1983. It would allow us to reflect on October 1983, to draw the lessons from the revolution, to mourn our dead ones in dignity, free from the strife, passion, conflict and hate, which the issue of the imprisoned 17 inevitably stirs up. Freeing the prisoners would greatly assist the process of national reconciliation and healing, without which, Grenada cannot move forward into the next millennium. Sixteen years is enough!