Joshua Samaroo Killing: Gary Griffith RESPONDS To Charges Laid Against Kaia Sealy
Former Commissioner of Police, Gary Griffith, has publicly challenged key aspects of the investigation into the Police-involved shooting incident on 20th January, 2026 in St. Augustine, which claimed the life of 31-year-old Joshua Samaroo and critically injured his girlfriend, 24-year-old Kaia Sealy. Griffith has raised ten (10) major concerns regarding evidence, Police tactics, forensic procedures and use of force.
In a lengthy Facebook post on Saturday (23rd May, 2026), Griffith said he was not attempting to declare anyone guilty or innocent, but argued that several troubling issues surrounding the investigation must be addressed publicly.
Griffith said his comments were based on seventeen (17) years as a Military Officer, his experience as a Range Officer, his training in armed combat and his background in national security and Policing. He stressed that he still has confidence in Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Roger Gaspard SC, but noted that the DPP can only make decisions based on information submitted by investigators.
See Griffith’s full statement below, which began with several swipes at Senator and Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Phillip Edward Alexander:
Phillip Alexander is telling all concerned, including me, to shut up, not to be concerned about the Samaroo shooting findings, and to believe what Guevarro says because “he is a real Police”.
Phillip Alexander, who does not have the minimum qualifications to be a private soldier in the Defence Force or a Police Constable in the TTPS, has once again, in total contrast to the directive of the Prime Minister, gone out of his lane by discussing law enforcement matters — which he is neither qualified to do, nor was appointed a Junior Minister for.
Is Phillip, a Government Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government? A legitimate question that many are asking.
To be clear, I am not here to adjudicate the case or pronounce guilt or innocence one way or the other, but after being a Military Officer for 17 years, being a Range Officer, conducting numerous range procedures for weapons training for hundreds of soldiers, being a marksman, undergoing Special Forces training, and being trained at the best military academy in the world, any rational and reasonable person would conclude that I am way more qualified than the deadbeat dad who is questioning my ability to understand the topic.
I have the utmost respect and confidence in the DPP, after working with him as a Security Minister and Police Commissioner, so his decision I would not question. But if poor Phillip had even one CXC pass, maybe he would have been able to publish the following 10 points to consider, and he would have understood that the DPP will make a decision based on what is given to him.
I urge all concerned to pay careful attention to the following.
1. The slow-motion video being shown, for obvious reasons, showing fragments of the rear window being scattered outwards, away from the car, is being viewed to mean that a weapon was fired inside the vehicle.
Incorrect — fragments go in and out of a window whether the shot was fired inside or outside the vehicle.
Shockwaves shatter the glass and force fragments to go both in and out of the vehicle.
As CoP, I visited several crime scenes and discovered fragments inside and outside vehicles from shootings at vehicles.
2. Seeing that the suspect is being charged with weapon possession and firing, was Gunshot Residue [GSR] tested on her hand whilst she was in the Hospital for six days after the incident?
This would verify the statements by the Officers, and this matter would end.
If it was not done, then this means either incompetence at the highest level, or they knew very well that there was no GSR to be found on her hand.
I am advised that it was not done, so Guevarro should explain this.
3. If a weapon was discovered in the vehicle and she is accused of firing that weapon, the question must be asked as to whether fingerprint extraction was carried out on the said weapon, and whether it was similar to Miss Sealy’s fingerprints.
The reason I ask is that I have been advised that no fingerprints were taken from Miss Sealy.
I would also like Guevarro to answer this.
4. Was the suspect advised that she was a suspect for weapon possession and the use of a weapon when initially held for six days?
I am advised that she was not.
If so, why was she not charged with weapon possession, and why, only months later, was she told of this?
You do not need the DPP’s approval for this. And this would have been especially simple because we are presently under a State of Emergency.
To prove my point, can anyone perceive that Police Officers knew they were fired upon by someone, meaning also that she was trying to kill them, and after three months she was not questioned by Police about this incident, to the point that she was not prevented from travelling abroad?
Another very important question that deserves answers.
5. Being trained at the highest level in armed combat, I am aware that it is common knowledge that, if confronted by hostile fire, your immediate action drill is to acquire cover from view and cover from fire.
If this lady was firing at Officers, then their immediate drill, if properly trained, would have been to seek cover and then return fire.
This is not a Rambo movie where the good guy can foolishly stand up in the open while the bad guys are shooting and missing, but the star gets accurate shots.
Can Guevarro explain how these Officers were so badly trained, or felt that they were so invincible, that they could be standing in the open and walking towards a target, with that target firing at them?
6. There is a minimum use-of-force policy. I trained hundreds of soldiers in this.
In this incident, it is seen that one of the Officers returns his automatic weapon to his side, either because of an empty magazine or a stoppage.
Whilst he did that, no firing took place for several seconds. However, he then drew his sidearm and continued after the lull.
If the target had been neutralised and you continued firing, that is an excessive use of force and a criminal offence.
Can Guevarro, the “real Police”, please explain this?
7. Was the victim/suspect advised that she was a suspect for a crime prior to her statement that her Attorneys submitted to the DPP?
If not, then her Attorneys would not have been able to challenge what was stated by the Police, making it unfair to the suspect and meaning that the DPP would not have been given the defence by the suspect to the accusation.
8. One of the responses by the Defence Attorney would have been that, if it was claimed that she was firing at the Officers whilst in the vehicle, then she would have been forced to face them in order to point the weapon.
However, her gunshot wounds were not consistent with someone firing at them, as she was hit in her back whilst being crouched under the dashboard, trying to avoid being hit.
Her gunshot wounds were consistent with someone hiding for cover, rather than being engaged in armed conflict.
9. Over 90% of the shots fired and connected at the occupants in the vehicle were at the person with his hands in the air.
Why would the Officers not focus on the target who was firing at them, as they claimed was the rationale for firing, and instead put their focus on the individual whose hands were in the air, as he was not the threat?
10. Finally, we recall that Guevarro, who is a “real Police”, did not understand international best practice involving the protocol that any Officer who fires his weapon, whether right or wrong, is immediately removed from duty involving weapons for a short period until the investigation is complete.
He stated that he saw no reason for such action to be taken, and mention was made about “all yuh don’t know what happened before the actual shooting”, or words to that effect, which is a totally irresponsible statement, as nothing that took place before the incident could justify the decision made to fire a weapon at that specific time.
The firing of a weapon must be based on what is confronted at that exact time.
But Guevarro should know this, as Phillip Alexander boasted that “he is a real Police”.
These points must in no way be seen as suggesting that the Officers are culpable or made a false statement. And it must not be seen as an attack on the TTPS, because, as everyone knows, my goal has always been to demand a better, more accountable Police service — hence why public trust and confidence in the TTPS during my tenure was the highest it has ever been.
But these are questions that must be answered or clarified, especially as Phillip Alexander, until otherwise advised, has spoken on behalf of the Government, telling the country to ignore others who are very concerned about the direction of this tragic incident, and to blindly listen to what Guevarro says because he is a “real Police”.
Finally, let me say that given the responses I have seen from the public so far, this will hurt public trust and confidence in the TTPS, which is already at an all-time low in single digits. So, if Phillip, the spokesman for “real Police”, wants to find out how to win public trust and support and get it back to almost 60% — my number hasn’t changed.
Gary Griffith
Comments
Post a Comment