A retractation by a lad of some 15 years of age brought about at Mampoko under influences not unfavourable to the accused sentry cannot be held as satisfactory. That the authorities at Coquilhatville did not themselves consider it convincing is clear from their action in calling upon Mr. Faris to furnish an extraneous support to the decision arrived at by their own magisterial inquiry at Mampoko.
Epondo’s “retractation” was made on the 8th October at Mampoko, and one statement in it, as given on p. 31 of the “Notes,” (p. 35, supra) throws doubt on much of the rest.
Question (by the Substitut): “Depuis combien do temps cet accident vous est-il arrivé?”
Answer (Epondo): “Je ne me rappelle pas: c’est depuis longtemps.”
When Mr. Casement visited Bosunguma on the 7th September the boy’s mutilated stump had evident signs of not being then completely healed: blood showed still in two places, over which the skin had not entirely formed, and it was wrapped up in a cloth.
“The “Notes” (p. 9) (p. 7, supra) allude to the attitude of the missionaries in the following words:—
“Et le fait n’est pas non plus sans importance, si l’on veut exactement se rendre compte de la valeur des témoignages, de la présence aux côtés de Mr. Casement, qui interrogeait les indigènes de deux missionnaires Protestants Anglais de la région, présence qui, à elle seule, a dû nécessairement orienter les dépositions.”
If it is permissible to cast this reflection upon the attitude towards the Government of the missionaries of the district, it is certainly relevant to point out that the presence beside Lieutenant Braeckman (who conducted the preliminary inquiry) and the Substitut du Procureur d’État of the agents of the Company having a deep interest in the charge against its employé, and the part those agents were permitted to take in the inquiry, must have vitally affected the testimony of the witnesses who deposed at Mampoko that the charge against the Lulanga sentry was inspired solely by a desire on the part of the natives to escape their rubber dealings with that firm.
It appears that there were two inquiries: the first conducted by Lieutenant Braeckman, at which the original witnesses against the sentry and others reaffirmed their accusation that it was he who had mutilated Epondo. At the second inquiry, conducted by the Substitut, which took place some fortnight later, none of the original witnesses against Kelengo appeared (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu,” p. 8, “Notes”) (p. 6, supra); but a number of persons—some of them servants of the Lulanga Company—made statements, contradictory in many respects, but agreeing with much unanimity that a wild boar, which no one of them had seen, at a date no one could assign, in an indeterminate locality, had eaten off the hand of this lad of 14 or 15 years of age, who, according to the first deposition cited (that of Efundu, on the 28th September, at Coquilhatville, p. 24, Annexe III) (p. 29, supra), had attempted to catch the wounded and infuriated creature by the ears!
It is obvious that the “conclusions posées” as the result of his inquiry by Lieutenant Braeckman (see “Ordonnance de Non-Lieu” of the 9th October, p. 8 of “Notes”) must, in part, have rested on evidence of natives he had interrogated at Bosunguma, in Mr. Armstrong’s presence, on the 14th September.