It was bad enough hearing that a colleague, DC Mathews, had learned of the officer in charge (OIC) of Narcotics, Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Ramsey, bad mouthing he (DC Mathews) and I, it was quite another to learn that I was effectively to be singled out for attention.
Initially I had assumed that this was a ‘trust thing’, specifically that DCI Ramsey did not trust me. However, this made little sense; my ‘results’ spoke for themselves and my diary, as evidenced by this website (blog) recorded in greater detail than most (if not all) what I was up to, that I worked long hours often unpaid.
It was not until some while later that I was to obtain an inkling that all was not right in the Narco’ office; that some people appeared to be beyond attention and ultimately, that the trust issue appeared to be that DCI Ramsey did not trust me to tow the line and kowtow to his position – that the concern was not that I may act inappropriately but that Mr Ramsey was the liability and I may discover the extent of this.
There is an argument that I managed to achieve more than I had any right to expect as a junior officer, an outsider eventually being on the island for a little less than 5 years. DCI Ramsey was, to many, a figure of ridicule. He was often to be found telephoning women and playing the radio (amorous songs) down the line to them. then there was the saga of the serving police officer (Leo Simmons) who had been caught drug dealing subsequently to which he referred to DCI Ramsey as ‘Daddy’ … to our knowledge he did not sire Leo! Click here for more information.
What I did not know in 1989 was that Dennis Ramsey was a year later to be linked, in a negative way, to “the largest and most serious crimes of conspiracy, drug trafficking, and money laundering ever conducted in the Bermuda Police Service” also refered to as the ‘Miranda’ enquiry – click here for more information.
It came as little surprise that, even when the information surfaced indicating Dennis should be investigated, no attention was paid to the matter and ultimately Dennis Ramsey was simply placed on ‘gardening leave’.
But in March 1989, this being the second attack on my integrity that month, I submitted the following A45 (formal report) to the Assistant Commissioner of police:
To:- A.C. ‘C’ Mr. Moniz)
From: DC 217
Date 15th March 1989
SUBJECT: Conditions of Service
This report I submit without prompting and, as far as is possible. without prejudice.
On Tuesday, 14th March, 1989, I had occasion to speak with Chief Inspector Ramsey with regard to the conditions under which I am expected to work. In short my initiative is stifled and my enthusiasm thwarted.
I explained that I had spoken with D.S. O’Mera and been informed that my Inspector wanted me ‘closely supervised’ and ‘constantly wanted to know where I was and what I was up to’. I have no complaint with this but being singled out is a little uncomfortable.
I informed D.S. O’Mera that, with his consent, I would confront Mr. Ramsey with this. Consent was granted and I used this information as a basis for our conversation. I explained that my reason for broaching the subject at all, and the hostile environment of the office in which I work, was to submit a request for a transfer to, hopefully, C.I.D. would, I feel have been a breach of confidence on my part. Mr. Ramsey has always shown me every courtesy and for me to ask for such a move without first informing my Chief Inspector of my grievance could be construed as an act of disloyalty.
The subject was broached, and having made Mr. Ramsey aware of the problem, and receiving a favourable response I felt was more than half the battle. Also touched upon was the caustic relationship that I have with W.P.C. Vickers, amid calls for unity and team work in the office. For all my attempts I cannot even get the lady to speak with me. This alone is of little consequence, a symptom of blatantly tactless animosity.
What I do object to is having my back checked every evening as I go off duty to ensure that there are no ‘knives’ in it.
I have been the subject of a ‘smear campaign’ by Miss Vickers. I can recall four separate incidents, but tonight’s constitutes the most damaging to my credibility and that of the office. To date the attacks have been to demean my efforts and cause animosity between myself and other officers by spreading disinformation and discrediting my involvement in arrests.
Tonight I dealt with Mr. JO1 who is well known to the Narcotics Office. I had him conveyed to Operations, with the car he was driving. Mr. JO1 I know to be a disqualified driver. When at Operations I stripped searched Mr. JO1, but not before I had searched the car he was driving. Whilst searching the car I heard W.P.C. Vickers comment that Mr. JO1 had not been driving the car.
I ignored her comment and having taken Mr. JO1 into the Operations building was called aside by D.S. O’Mera who pointed out that there had been a lot of witnesses where I had stopped Mr. JO1 and that issuing a ticket to Mr. JO1 was not correct for the circumstances.
I issued the ticket to Mr. JO1 and I anticipate a ‘not guilty’ plea. Mr. JO1approached W.P.C. Vickers in the Operations building and raised the issue that she had not seen him driving. Mr. JO1’s parting words to me were that he intended calling W.P.C. Vickers as a witness. Fortunately, D.C. Severin is able to verify that Mr. Johnson drove the car.
I broached the subject with W.P.C. Vickers whilst in Delta 2 in the company of D.S. O’Mera and D.C. Matthews, Informing her that Mr. JO1 would be requiring her as a witness. W.P.C. Vickers stated in the hearing of the other officers that she could not see Mr. JO1’s car due to her being in Court Street and her view being blocked by another vehicle. However, if Mr. JO1’s Barrister, Mr. Hall, asks me if there were any officers present who stated that Mr. Johnson had not been driving….
Sir, I do not want to submit this report. I am still suffering from the results of my last run in with a ‘fellow officer’ however, if I do not bring this situation to your attention then I only have myself to blame when a more serious situation arises.
It is quite obvious that W.P.C. Vickers spoke about Mr. JO1 not being the driver, otherwise D.S. O’mera would not have ‘had words’ with me. Fortunately the situation arose where she had to withdraw the remarks. I do not consider this to be a careless comment that was made, it was specific enough to warrant D.S. O’Mera speaking with me. However, I do consider the attitude juvenile and irresponsible.
I am having enough problems in Court with: for example, Mr. Hector questioning me regarding a label of ‘Super Cop’, a term which Mr. Hector has gleaned from other officers (as mentioned in R.vs. Maurice Smith on 9.5.89 and used to slander my character and credibility). I constantly make multiple book entries purely to justify and safeguard my own existence in the office. I cannot recall a occasion when I have done so little work and had so much time to do it in.
In submitting this report I am effectively bringing to a conclusion my short lived Narcotics career and no one is more sorry than I. My interests lie in the Narcotics Department, my local knowledge is narcotics orientated and I had hoped to be effective in the office.
I trust that this report will be treated in confidence and that what could be construed as a ‘telltale’ act of disloyalty is viewed in the context that was intended, namely to voice concern for the professional reputation of the department and myself.
On the whole I have enjoyed my experience in Narcotics I would wish to remain in the section, however, in view of the described circumstances I may, unfortunately. be less harmful to myself elsewhere. Should a transfer be inevitable I ask that I be considered for a posting to Central C.I.D.
Reluctantly, but respectfully submitted.
D.C. 217 SWIFT