Blame game over church killing

Defence attorney Anthony Williams yesterday sought to shift blame for the 2021 alleged religious killing from his client, Andre Ruddock, to late church leader Dr Kevin Smith, while challenging the credibility of a former Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries church member.

“I am suggesting that the person who cut Taneka Gardner’s throat was your pastor and not Mr Ruddock,” Williams said, in reference to a bizarre series of events that unfolded at the church on October 17 in St James and left three people dead.

However, the witness, who acknowledged that he had been a junior minister in training, disagreed and maintained his evidence implicating Ruddock.

The witness had earlier testified that he observed Ruddock cutting Gardner’s throat on Smith’s instructions.

The witness also stated that Smith had asked Ruddock to cut Gardner’s head “right off” and that he had complied. He said, however, that during the incident, a cow appeared and Smith told Ruddock and another church brother to kill the cow.

Ruddock is on trial in the Home Circuit Court before Justice Leighton Pusey and a seven-member jury for Gardner’s murder.

Smith died about a week after the church incident in a motor vehicle crash while being transported to Kingston to face charges arising from the events.

Continuing his cross-examination, Williams sought to establish that his client had no interaction with Ruddock on the day of the incident and had not been in Smith’s presence when Ruddock was killed.

“You said you saw some cows,” Williams said, but the witness corrected him, saying he saw one cow, a red bull.

“There are three cows on the property. How I know of that, I was the one who purchased them with my own money in Goshen, St Elizabeth,” the witness said.

Williams then said, “I am suggesting that it was Mr Ruddock who was coming down the hill with the four cows.”

The witness, however, denied this.

Counsel further suggested that his client was on the hill, which was not on the church premises, but the witness contended that both the hill and the cow were on the church compound.

The witness also denied the suggestion that he had not asked Ruddock to tie a cloth around his injured back and that he had seen Ruddock outside on the boardwalk.

The witness maintained that he had encountered Ruddock several times that day and had spoken with him.

Williams further suggested that the witness had implicated Ruddock out of malice.

He suggested to the witness that he had credited $100,000 worth of meat from a vendor in St Elizabeth in 2019 and had not paid for it.

However, this was emphatically denied by the witness, who said he had never purchased any meat in St Elizabeth, much less for that price.

“I am suggesting you got upset with Ruddock because you accused him of being the person to tell the meat seller to publish your ID on Facebook,” Williams said.

Again, the witness disagreed, noting that he had no “ill will or bad intentions towards” Ruddock.

STATEMENTS CHALLENGED

Williams also challenged the witness at length about what he said was a significant omission from the witness’s statements to the police.

The witness had testified that Smith pushed his fingers into his wounds after shooting him twice in the back during the church incident.

Williams suggested that the witness had not mentioned this claim in any of the four statements he gave to the police shortly afterwards.

The witness repeatedly said he could not recall.

Williams then took him through his four statements, pointing out that although the witness had made corrections to earlier statements, there was no correction adding the claim about Smith putting his fingers into his wound.

Williams suggested that the reason the witness had not mentioned the incident was because it never happened and that he had lied.

The witness disagreed.

“These are things I buried in my mind five years ago. I buried them in my mind because this is a very traumatic thing that unfolded in my life,” he said.

Williams also tried to establish that Smith had made threats about cutting several persons’ throats, including Smith’s chef and another male.

The witness rejected the suggestion, although he was shown in his statement where he had made reference to Smith threatening to cut the young man’s throat because his mother did not take the vaccine.

The witness acknowledged that he had put it in his statement, but said there was a reason why he was saying no to the suggestion, but he was not given the opportunity to explain.

“If you completed my statement, you would know what Kevin Smith did to ‘Deejay’ and why my answer was no,” he said.

Williams also suggested that the witness had assisted Smith in firing at the police.

“I am suggesting to you that you went to your bus and took out the illegal gun that you had in your bus. Do you agree?” Williams asked.

“Finish your statement,” the witness said.

Williams then suggested that, after the witness went to the van for the gun, he returned to where the pastor was and fired shots at the police.

The witness rejected the suggestion.

Williams also suggested that it was the police who had shot the witness and not Smith, but that suggestion was also denied.

Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor, Latoya Bernard, raised several objections during Williams’ cross-examination, arguing that he was making suggestions about issues that were not part of his case and that he needed to bring evidence to support his suggestions.

“I am objecting to all of it, and I am again hoping that evidence will be brought to substantiate all of this,” she said on one occasion.

The trial continues today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com