Witness admits she didn’t see all details described in joint statement with partner

A prosecution witness yesterday insisted that although she and her partner witnessed parts of the fatal shooting of three men on Acadia Drive in St Andrew in 2013, and later composed a letter about the incident, some details in the document were based on her partner’s observations and not her own.

The witness made the clarification as she came under intense cross-examination from defence attorney Hugh Wildman in the Home Circuit Court during the ongoing trial of six policemen charged in connection with the incident.

Wildman questioned the woman about a statement she gave to investigators at the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) and the letter she and her partner prepared recounting what they had seen on the day of the shooting.

Pointing to a section of the letter indicating that a revolver had been recovered by the police, Wildman asked the witness why the detail appeared in her statement if she had not personally observed it.

The woman explained that the letter reflected a combination of what she and her partner saw during the incident.

“I agreed to his observation. I did not observe that myself,” she told the court.

Pressed further, she said, “I believe him to be truthful, but I cannot testify to what I did not see.”

Asked to explain why she had mentioned the revolver if it was not her observation, the witness said she had used the letter to help with her statement and had pointed out to the investigators the portions which were not her observation.

“I am not an expert in statements. I was summoned by INDECOM and I followed instructions,” she told Wildman.

“Would you agree that the letter has misleading information?” Wildman asked.

“No, it has two observations compiled as one,” she replied. Before adding, when Wildman continued, “I am of the impression that a composite letter is escaping your mind.”

When questioned about other aspects she had not observed, she noted that though it was in the letter that the policemen had shouted, “Drop the gun, bwoy”, she did not recall hearing that from the top of the three-storey building where she was standing.

Further, during her evidence, the witness maintained that she had only seen four men, before seeing a fifth arriving in the Kingfish vehicle. She also testified that she had only seen three of the policemen with long guns and could not see whether the fourth had a gun, as his back was turned to her.

The witness also testified that she could not see inside the Mitsubishi Outlander in which the three men were travelling.

The court previously heard that the woman had been observing the scene from her apartment when she heard what sounded like an explosion and went to her window. From there, she said she saw four policemen at the location and a police vehicle parked near a Mitsubishi motor vehicle along the roadway.

She said she initially noticed one man in a white T-shirt sitting at the back of the Outlander and, after hearing a lone gunshot and going to the window, later heard more shots and saw the man lying on the ground. She also indicated that she had seen a man exiting the car with his hands raised before running and being chased and shot by the police.

The witness also recalled seeing a third man, who appeared to have papers in his hand, standing at the front of the Outlander. Following the shooting, she said she saw him lying on the ground.

During cross-examination from Wildman, she indicated that she could not say how many of the policemen had fired. She also said she was unable to tell whether the man who ran from the car and jumped the wall had a gun, nor could she tell if there was a gun in the Outlander, or if a fourth man had run from the car. She also said she could not make out any marks on the dead persons’ bodies.

WILDMAN’S EXAMINATION

During further questioning, Wildman challenged the witness about her vantage point, suggesting that buildings and walls in the area may have obstructed parts of her view. However, the witness maintained that she had a clear view from her apartment window. She did agree that she could not see directly across from her window and was rather looking up at an angle. The witness could not provide any measurement of the distance from where she was standing to the Outlander, or from the window to the perimeter wall.

Earlier in the proceedings, Wildman again grilled the witness about a “closed-door” meeting she had with lead prosecutor Kathy-Ann Pyke and INDECOM officer Warren Williams ahead of her testimony. The witness maintained that the discussion was about her statement and that the meeting was forced to a premature end after Wildman barged in and created a scene.

She said Pyke did not give her a list of likely questions.

During that exchange, Wildman told the court that Pyke could be charged with perverting the course of justice. Following an objection from Pyke, who argued that she had done nothing wrong and was carrying out her duties according to the law, Justice Bertram Linton berated Wildman for his statement, noting that he was out of order and should not have made that statement in front of the jury.

Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, and Constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose, and Richard Lynch are on trial for the fatal shooting of Matthew Lee, Mark Allen, and Ucliffe Dyer on January 12, 2013.

The trial continues today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com