Affidavits of Kinserian, Freddy and Adimal

This document will analyse "ANNEX 46" attached to Indian documents filed at the International Tribunal for the Law Of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg on 6 August, 2015

   Affidavits by Mr.Kinserian, Mr.Freddy and Mr.Michael Adimal, 30 July 2015 and 30 August 2015

These are the Affidavits (spontaneous declarations) made to the Indian authorities by three people who at the time of the accident were on the St.Antony fishing vessel. The purpose of this document: To find in the depositions items allowing to reconstruct facts helpful to the defence of the two accused Marines.

NOTE: these 'spontaneous statements‘ were made between July 30 and August 4, 2015, and therefore we consider them functional to the 'written observations' lodged by the Republic of India at the Court of Hamburg on August 6, 2015;

Analysis of the Annex 46 document

Spontaneous declarations are made by:

  1. Mr. Kinserian, fisherman
  2. Mr. Freddy Bosco, fisherman and owner of the St.Antony
  3. Mr. Michael Adimai, fisherman

The owner of the St.Antony

Mr. Michalel Adimai and Mr. Kinserian state that Mr Freddy Bosco is the owner of the St.Antony:
[...the fishing boat St.Antony's owned by my friend Freddy - Michael]
[...was owned by my friend Freddy - Kinserian]

Mr. Freddy Bosco himself confirmed that he is the owner of the fishing vessel St.Antony:
[...is in my ownership...].

This contradicts the statements made to the authorities by Mr. Freddy Bosco on the same evening of the 15 February 2012 facts (see Annex 2):
[...I called Prabhu, owner of St.Antony's boat... - Freddy]

Freddy's statement to the police from his First Information Statement
Freddy's statement to the police from his First Information Statement (Annex 2).

It is of the utmost importance to clarify who was the real owner of the St.Antony because after the so-called 'investigations' the boat is ‘returned’ by the Court and then scuttled.

Returned to whom?

The sinking of the St.Antony is functional to affect the rights of the defence which, excluded both from the survey on the boat and from the subsequent ballistic expertise, can no longer return to do surveys and analysis. In other words, to remove any powder residue, metal microfragments, and delete bloodstains, etc...

If the owner of the St.Antony is this elusive Prabhu to whom the shooting is reported, who then delegate others to report to the authorities, and who then, once the vessel has been returned, sinks it, it is clear that Prabhu becomes an actor in this affair and his role should be (and had to be) investigated.

It is also surprising that Freddy Bosco may with impunity support different versions before the authorities and then be considered and kept as a reliable witness, even 'a star witness', while seeing the flurry of different statements about schedules, locations, role etc... he wouldn't even be admitted to an Italian Court.

The «photocopy statements»

The surprising aspect of these « Affidavits» is that they are copies of each other, nothing to do with the ' spontaneous declarations’ that they claim to represent.

Comparison of the story of the facts as explained from Kinserian, Freddy and Adimal
Comparison of the story of the facts as explained from Kinserian, Freddy and Adimal

It might seem an extravagance to have them 'spontaneously declare the same words', but actually this step that keeps repeating itself is functional in order by the Indian authorities to use in the law-suit the SUA Act anti-piracy law:

  • the authors of the killings, Latorre e Girone, who were recognized by all three witnesses, have been identified,
  • they have fired and killing, without reason or provocation,
  • they have fired and killing, without warning,
  • causing death,
  • causing damages to a boat.

There is everything you need to reach a conviction based on Sect. 3 of SUA Act 2002, without having to show evidence of guilt (see Annex 3 SUA Act)

And these three testimonies by people who were aboard the St.Antony complement and supplement those obtained from the three subjects who were aboard the Enrica Lexie: Vitelli, Gupta and Samson.

- those aboard the Enrica Lexie testify that:

  • Was a fishing boat,
  • It did not have onboard ladders or hooks,
  • There were no armed people

- those aboard the St.Antony testify that:

  • Girone e Latorre have fired,
  • Without warnings,
  • Causing the death of two people

There is everything you need, as long as in the judicial proceedings "scientific evidences" are not required , or rather nobody claims to check them.

It certainly takes a certain acquiescence by the defense to accept without question the measures taken with a measuring tape and the conclusions using hundredths of a millimeter, or the concealment of the autopsy which, showing the caliber of the bullets recovered, clears the two defendants. But even the 'approximately similar' that describes the difference between the bullets recovered from the intracorpore and those supplied to the defendants.

They needed however a certain acquiescence even to accept without question the shred of evidence of the rights of the defence, the destruction of the exhibits, the omissive investigations and so on.

Therefore it would appear that the Indian authorities are confident that this acquiescence will go on, given the silence which followed the filing of the 'written comments' of August 6 in Hamburg.

Conclusions

The Affidavits are functional to be used to hold a trial using the SUA Act law, as well as the depositions by the three people aboard the Enrica Lexie.

Evidently, almost four years after the facts, Indian investigators had no evidence that the fishermen aboard the St. Anthony could recognize the gunshots coming from the Enrica Lexie, therefore they used a photocopier a couple of days before depositing the piece of evidence in Hamburg.

It is clear that this is extremely disputable : a human eye with a visual acuity of 10/10 can discriminate sottended details underlying an arc of 1/60°, therefore it will be possible to verify whether from aboard the St.Antony the faces of Latorre and Girone could be recognized, or whether from aboard the Enrica Lexie it would have been possible to see that there were no hooks or guns.

If then from the optical analysis it should turn out that these six witnesses can boast a Visual acuity of, let’s say, 100/10 (100 tenths, much better than eagles) we shall have another 'technical' subject to quibble about in Court.