Investigation was impeded by poor handling of evidence and limits on jurisdiction
Maggie Ng and Phyllis Tsang 24 March 2011
Key questions have not been answered despite two costly probes into the Manila hostage killings.
Was any hostage killed by stray bullets? Could any of the slain victims have survived if prompt medical treatment had been given? What transpired in negotiations with gunman Rolando Mendoza?
The Manila probe missed many of these and other crucial questions, and an inquest in Hong Kong tried hard to pick up the pieces. But in the end only tentative clues were available and few definitive answers.
“How exactly was the rescue procedure carried out? Did they try their best to rescue the tour members?” survivor Lee Ying-chuen asked. “It is unfortunate because none of their medics gave evidence.”
Hong Kong’s 28-day inquest, which ended yesterday, was preceded by the Philippines’ seven-day inquiry in September. Forty-one witnesses testified in the Hong Kong inquest and 27 gave evidence.
In concluding the process, Coroner Michael Chan Pik-kiu said: “I believe the jury and the public could see a clearer picture.”
The Manila inquiry, aimed at finding out what went wrong, recommended 10 individuals and two media networks be held responsible for the botched rescue attempt. Chaired by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, it found that Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim had “abandoned the command post” during a critical moment of the hostage taking.
The Hong Kong inquest, in contrast, was concerned with the cause and circumstances of the deaths. Both the inquiry and the inquest left important questions unanswered:
Did stray bullets hit the hostages?
What was the content of the negotiation with hostage-taker Mendoza that eventually broke down?
How many hostages were still alive when medics arrived? Where are the clothes of the deceased, which could shed light on the distance from which they were shot?
Did the police hear the gunman’s repeated warning on air that he would start shooting the hostages?
The Philippine investigation concluded that all eight deceased were “non-survivable”. However, it is unclear what their physiological states were when medics first arrived.
Hong Kong’s inquest revealed two slain hostages had a chance of survival if proper medical treatment had been provided sooner. The jury agreed that the slow action of the police, which took an hour and 20 minutes to shoot the gunman, meant the two deceased did not receive prompt treatment.
Tour guide Masa Tse Ting-chunn could reasonably have survived for half an hour and possibly up to an hour, Professor Timothy Rainer, an expert on accident and emergency medicine from Chinese University, testified earlier.
Jessie Leung Song-yi could have survived up to half and hour, he said.
Chief medical supervisor Ruby Grace Sabino-Diangson also told the inquest that first-aid officers who boarded the bus after the gunman was shot dead by snipers had told her that some of the hostages, who later died, still showed signs of life. But she did not remember who or how many were still alive, and she did not keep a record of the interviews with the first-aid officers.
The lack of proper medical records also affected Rainer’s analysis, who noted that his conclusion was “at best crude”, as information about the hostages’ condition when medics boarded the bus was unavailable.
Regarding forensic evidence from the bus, the Philippine inquiry did not incorporate findings from ballistic tests on bullet fragments. Their conclusion was based on an examination of the bus. Also, blood-stain analysis was done according to gender and blood type, instead of DNA.
Hong Kong’s forensic experts were able to find at least 18 groups of bullet fragments in the bodies of five of the victims. But they were unable to match the fragments with firearms deployed that day by the police or carried by the gunman because the fragments were too small.
The inquest did not hear the content of the negotiation, conducted by Chief Inspector Romeo Salvador and Superintendent Orlando Yebra. The inquest only heard that negotiations broke down after the gunman found out that Yebra had lied to him about Mendoza’s confiscated pistol.
Yebra told the gunman he had already returned Gregorio Mendoza’s gun, which was confiscated earlier that day. But Gregorio, the gunman’s younger brother, told Rolando Mendoza that it had not been returned.
The Hong Kong inquest only heard about a small aspect of the negotiation. It heard that the gunman released six tourists, a Philippine tour guide and two Philippine photographers in exchange for having his demands met. It also heard that the gunman asked for petrol and documents relating to his dismissal passed to an ombudsman.
The inquest revealed that Jason Leung Song-xue, 19 - who survived serious brain injuries - was probably shot rather than hit by hard objects. Blood stain patterns and fragments of his hair found on the underside of the overhead luggage rack dispelled the rumour Leung was hurt by sledgehammers the police used to break into the bus.
Testimony of Police Chief Inspector Benjamin Venancio Lara, who conducted a postmortem examination on the 31-year-old tour guide Tse, suggested that his right leg could have been bruised by a hammer after he had been shot and while he was still alive. News footage showing a police officer dropping a hammer into the bus was aired in court.
Hong Kong’s inquiry revealed the incompleteness of evidence from the Philippines: a slain hostage’s brain was found among her heart and lungs after her first autopsy; clothing of the deceased could not be traced; bodies were altered by embalming and X-rays were not done on the bodies to locate bullet fragments.
A total of 170 items, including a bus model, witness statements, an autopsy report and glass panels used in ballistics simulation were admitted as evidence in the inquest. The hearing involved testimony from 10 of 116 Filipino witnesses summoned.
Apart from experts’ evidence and survivors’ testimonies, the inquest relied on transcripts from the Philippine inquiry to fill in the blanks left by the absence of key witnesses, such as Lim, the then Manila police chief Rodolfo Magtibay and journalists Michael Rogas and Erwin Tulfo, who interviewed the gunman in the run-up to the shootings.
Police from Hong Kong, who were limited by jurisdiction, were largely unable to collect statements from witnesses. Press statements released by a Filipino broadcast network, on behalf of Rogas and Tulfo, were referred to as “witness statements”. The statements bore the stamp of the network’s spokesperson.
A police chief inspector said they were only able to pass questions to a few witnesses via Philippine police.
Forensic pathologists in Hong Kong had to reach their conclusions on autopsy reports based on bodies that had been embalmed, altered or even dissected.
The autopsies of five of the hostages dissected in Manila were mostly under one page in length. Doctors in Manila reached the conclusion that “the deaths of the eight hostages are attributable to gunfire coming from Mendoza using the rifle he was armed with”.
Due to a lack of fridges at funeral parlours in Manila, all eight bodies were embalmed. Acting senior forensic pathologist Dr Lam Wai-kwok, who dissected victim Doris Leung Chung-see in a second autopsy, found that cloth was placed in her head to keep the shattered skull in place while her brain was among her heart and lungs.
A Filipino forensic expert said protective gear was not worn, while a Hong Kong expert testified that headrest covers, seats and the rear glass panel on the bus were missing.
“How can you find the truth if even organs have been misplaced?” survivor Chan Kwok-chu asked.
3 comments:
Crucial questions that were never answered
Investigation was impeded by poor handling of evidence and limits on jurisdiction
Maggie Ng and Phyllis Tsang
24 March 2011
Key questions have not been answered despite two costly probes into the Manila hostage killings.
Was any hostage killed by stray bullets? Could any of the slain victims have survived if prompt medical treatment had been given? What transpired in negotiations with gunman Rolando Mendoza?
The Manila probe missed many of these and other crucial questions, and an inquest in Hong Kong tried hard to pick up the pieces. But in the end only tentative clues were available and few definitive answers.
“How exactly was the rescue procedure carried out? Did they try their best to rescue the tour members?” survivor Lee Ying-chuen asked. “It is unfortunate because none of their medics gave evidence.”
Hong Kong’s 28-day inquest, which ended yesterday, was preceded by the Philippines’ seven-day inquiry in September. Forty-one witnesses testified in the Hong Kong inquest and 27 gave evidence.
In concluding the process, Coroner Michael Chan Pik-kiu said: “I believe the jury and the public could see a clearer picture.”
The Manila inquiry, aimed at finding out what went wrong, recommended 10 individuals and two media networks be held responsible for the botched rescue attempt. Chaired by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, it found that Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim had “abandoned the command post” during a critical moment of the hostage taking.
The Hong Kong inquest, in contrast, was concerned with the cause and circumstances of the deaths. Both the inquiry and the inquest left important questions unanswered:
Did stray bullets hit the hostages?
What was the content of the negotiation with hostage-taker Mendoza that eventually broke down?
How many hostages were still alive when medics arrived? Where are the clothes of the deceased, which could shed light on the distance from which they were shot?
Did the police hear the gunman’s repeated warning on air that he would start shooting the hostages?
The Philippine investigation concluded that all eight deceased were “non-survivable”. However, it is unclear what their physiological states were when medics first arrived.
Hong Kong’s inquest revealed two slain hostages had a chance of survival if proper medical treatment had been provided sooner. The jury agreed that the slow action of the police, which took an hour and 20 minutes to shoot the gunman, meant the two deceased did not receive prompt treatment.
Tour guide Masa Tse Ting-chunn could reasonably have survived for half an hour and possibly up to an hour, Professor Timothy Rainer, an expert on accident and emergency medicine from Chinese University, testified earlier.
Jessie Leung Song-yi could have survived up to half and hour, he said.
Chief medical supervisor Ruby Grace Sabino-Diangson also told the inquest that first-aid officers who boarded the bus after the gunman was shot dead by snipers had told her that some of the hostages, who later died, still showed signs of life. But she did not remember who or how many were still alive, and she did not keep a record of the interviews with the first-aid officers.
The lack of proper medical records also affected Rainer’s analysis, who noted that his conclusion was “at best crude”, as information about the hostages’ condition when medics boarded the bus was unavailable.
Regarding forensic evidence from the bus, the Philippine inquiry did not incorporate findings from ballistic tests on bullet fragments. Their conclusion was based on an examination of the bus. Also, blood-stain analysis was done according to gender and blood type, instead of DNA.
Hong Kong’s forensic experts were able to find at least 18 groups of bullet fragments in the bodies of five of the victims. But they were unable to match the fragments with firearms deployed that day by the police or carried by the gunman because the fragments were too small.
The inquest did not hear the content of the negotiation, conducted by Chief Inspector Romeo Salvador and Superintendent Orlando Yebra. The inquest only heard that negotiations broke down after the gunman found out that Yebra had lied to him about Mendoza’s confiscated pistol.
Yebra told the gunman he had already returned Gregorio Mendoza’s gun, which was confiscated earlier that day. But Gregorio, the gunman’s younger brother, told Rolando Mendoza that it had not been returned.
The Hong Kong inquest only heard about a small aspect of the negotiation. It heard that the gunman released six tourists, a Philippine tour guide and two Philippine photographers in exchange for having his demands met. It also heard that the gunman asked for petrol and documents relating to his dismissal passed to an ombudsman.
The inquest revealed that Jason Leung Song-xue, 19 - who survived serious brain injuries - was probably shot rather than hit by hard objects. Blood stain patterns and fragments of his hair found on the underside of the overhead luggage rack dispelled the rumour Leung was hurt by sledgehammers the police used to break into the bus.
Testimony of Police Chief Inspector Benjamin Venancio Lara, who conducted a postmortem examination on the 31-year-old tour guide Tse, suggested that his right leg could have been bruised by a hammer after he had been shot and while he was still alive. News footage showing a police officer dropping a hammer into the bus was aired in court.
Hong Kong’s inquiry revealed the incompleteness of evidence from the Philippines: a slain hostage’s brain was found among her heart and lungs after her first autopsy; clothing of the deceased could not be traced; bodies were altered by embalming and X-rays were not done on the bodies to locate bullet fragments.
A total of 170 items, including a bus model, witness statements, an autopsy report and glass panels used in ballistics simulation were admitted as evidence in the inquest. The hearing involved testimony from 10 of 116 Filipino witnesses summoned.
Apart from experts’ evidence and survivors’ testimonies, the inquest relied on transcripts from the Philippine inquiry to fill in the blanks left by the absence of key witnesses, such as Lim, the then Manila police chief Rodolfo Magtibay and journalists Michael Rogas and Erwin Tulfo, who interviewed the gunman in the run-up to the shootings.
Police from Hong Kong, who were limited by jurisdiction, were largely unable to collect statements from witnesses. Press statements released by a Filipino broadcast network, on behalf of Rogas and Tulfo, were referred to as “witness statements”. The statements bore the stamp of the network’s spokesperson.
A police chief inspector said they were only able to pass questions to a few witnesses via Philippine police.
Forensic pathologists in Hong Kong had to reach their conclusions on autopsy reports based on bodies that had been embalmed, altered or even dissected.
The autopsies of five of the hostages dissected in Manila were mostly under one page in length. Doctors in Manila reached the conclusion that “the deaths of the eight hostages are attributable to gunfire coming from Mendoza using the rifle he was armed with”.
Due to a lack of fridges at funeral parlours in Manila, all eight bodies were embalmed. Acting senior forensic pathologist Dr Lam Wai-kwok, who dissected victim Doris Leung Chung-see in a second autopsy, found that cloth was placed in her head to keep the shattered skull in place while her brain was among her heart and lungs.
A Filipino forensic expert said protective gear was not worn, while a Hong Kong expert testified that headrest covers, seats and the rear glass panel on the bus were missing.
“How can you find the truth if even organs have been misplaced?” survivor Chan Kwok-chu asked.
Post a Comment