April 21, 2014

Dear Sir,

In the wake of the former Ombudsman’s report, “A Grave Error” (2014), those responsible for the desecration and vandalism of the old cemetery at Tucker’s Town (under the pious guise of “restoration”) have decided not to comment. They have been given every opportunity to do so by your newspaper and have (in my opinion) shown complete disrespect to your investigative reporter, to those buried in the cemetery and their descendants, and to the public at large. I may be forgiven for being absolutely furious at this ‘holier than thou’ trinity who appear to believe that they are accountable to no one. Who is this ‘holy trinity’, Mr Editor? (1) Dr Edward Cecil Harris, Director of the National Museum of Bermuda; (2) Pastor Joseph F Whalen and the Trustees of the Marsden First United Methodist Church; and (3) Rosewood Tucker’s Point representatives.

Having just yesterday seen, for the first time, the 2011 GPR survey report of the cemetery (“prepared for Rosewood Tucker’s Point”), I have one question for these ‘experts’, Mr Editor, if I may be permitted: “Can any of you read?”

And since my question (like those of your capable journalist) will be met with constructive silence, permit me to answer for them: “No, we cannot read, apparently.”

Mr Editor, there are none so blind as those who have eyes (or degrees) but cannot see.

The following is a quote from the GPR survey report of September 2011, authored by Canadian archaeologist Dr John R Triggs, PhD, The quote is taken from a prominent footnote at the bottom of page nine:

“The concrete sarcophagi were erected probably in the 1990s and are not original to the cemetery. The burial monuments they cover appear to be the ones visible in a 1973 aerial view of the cemetery. An earlier aerial photograph, dated 1940, shows the cemetery west wall but no monuments are clearly visible. This may be due to the poor resolution of the earlier photograph, but if not present then the monuments can be dated to between 1940 and 1973. However, until such time as an inspection is carried out, it is just as likely that the monuments shown in 1973 are original to the cemetery.” [My emphasis]

Later in the survey report, at recommendation number 5 (pages 25-26), Dr Triggs writes:

“In a 1962 aerial, the cemetery appears to be overgrown with vegetation and no evidence of burials or the south wall of the graveyard can be seen. By 1973 in an aerial view, the cemetery has been partially cleared, the south wall appears to be missing, and evidence of a number of burials is visible. By 2003 in an aerial of that date, the remains of what are presumed to be the original tombs have been covered with new sarcophagi, which are not of the usual Bermuda proportions. It is recommended that the late [or “new”] sarcophagi be removed. If the original grave features have been kept within they should be preserved, thus taking the cemetery back in part to how it would have appeared prior to the 1920s ...” [My emphasis]

So, there you have it, Mr Editor. Dr Triggs did not say that the tombs or monuments were “false”. He did not recommend that they be torn up with a backhoe or bulldozed out of existence (actions overseen by Dr Harris). He made a clear distinction between the “original tombs”, “burial monuments” and “original grave features” that had been “covered” by concrete sarcophagi. It was these new “covers” which he recommended (if anything) be removed. He recommended that the original monuments “should be preserved.”

Yet, this ‘holy trinity’ has stated prior to the release of “A Grave Error” that they acted on Dr Triggs’ recommendations.

The former Ombudsman, herself, got it wrong in her report (at page 15) when she stated: “The GPR Survey did not take the existing tombs within the Cemetery into account. Dr Triggs reviewed the aerial photographs but did not examine the tombs themselves. There were no discussions of the fact that the concrete slab tops were distinguishable from the (albeit whitewashed) porous stones of the tomb walls ... Instead, Dr Triggs adopted the view (based on the aerial photographs and Dr Harris’ assertion) that the tombs were ‘false’ and ‘new’, possibly built in 1992.” She then drives a final stake into the heart of Dr Triggs’ professional integrity when she states in footnote 27 at page 16: “He now says that he meant that only the lids be removed. However this is neither stated in the GPR Survey ...” Mr Editor, I guess Ms Brock did not read Dr Triggs’ 2011 survey report properly, either.

The question I want to put to Dr Triggs (who I had the pleasure of meeting a number of years ago) is this: “Are you a man, or a mouse?” All of these people have saddled you with the ‘blame’ for the disgraceful debacle and illegal desecration of one of our national historic protection areas. They have claimed that these actions were taken on your recommendation. It is now obvious to me, and others, that these people cannot read, and owe you (and everyone else) a huge apology. I have been told that you refuse to comment on these false assertions. Why?

To the Marsden Trustees, who claim “custodianship” of the cemetery: If there had been, on your part, a consistent awareness, caretaking and reverence of this cemetery after 1920 up until the present (tempered with an increased dosage of humility and a decreased dose of arrogance) then you would have known the original monuments had been there all along. With custodianship or “custody” comes a presumption of responsibility and fitness for the job. You have shown yourselves to be neither fit nor responsible ... nor literate. How you can commemorate and bless these tombs in 1996, and then allow invasive machinery into the cemetery to destroy them in 2012, is beyond even heavenly comprehension.

In closing, Mr Editor: four Bermudian entities (the Director of our National Museum; the Trustees of a local Church; Rosewood Tucker’s Point, a local company; and our former Bermudian Ombudsman) have claimed that a non-Bermudian professional (invited to Bermuda to conduct a survey) made recommendations he did NOT make which resulted in the unlawful desecration of a Bermudian Historic Protection site, of particular relevance to Bermudians of African descent. You all have made a fatal error and have illustrated how Bermudians, at times, can be our own worst enemy.

LeYoni Junos

Independent (Bermudian) Historical Researcher (with no degree)