Detective denies lying about Pathways murder accused giving false name

The defence yesterday accused a Pathways murder investigator of lying about Andre Ruddock giving police a false name following Taneka Gardner’s killing.

Attorney Anthony Williams, during cross-examination yesterday, suggested that his client never gave the detective sergeant a wrong name.

However, the witness, who testified at the murder trial in which Ruddock is accused of Gardner’s alleged sacrificial killing, said he was “wrong”.

“I am suggesting it was you who asked Ruddock if his name was Andre Kirlew,” Williams said, eliciting laughter from the witness, who responded, “I couldn’t do that”.

Williams further suggested that it was his client who had corrected the detective and told her his real name, but the witness disagreed.

Gardner, a member of Pathways International Restoration Ministries, was killed on October 17, 2021, at the church in St James. Two other persons were also killed, one by the police and the other allegedly by church leader Dr Kevin Smith.

The detective sergeant had testified that Ruddock gave her the name Andre Kirlew, which she found suspicious, and that she asked officers to hold him while she continued her investigations.

The investigator said she was told this by Ruddock, a former bodyguard of Smith’s, after a church member pointed him out as Andre Ruddock, a security guard.

The witness said she also received information from two other persons that his correct name was Andre Ruddock and not Kirlew.

During cross-examination, Williams asked the witness whether she subsequently investigated Ruddock’s correct name.

The witness said she did not.

However, she said she spoke to Ruddock about the matter while on the compound but denied Williams’ suggestion that she never spoke to him about the conflicting names.

Williams then questioned her on whether the information about speaking with Ruddock about the difference in names was an important piece of evidence that should have been included in her statement.

The witness agreed, but insisted that she did not put it in her statement because she had not confirmed his identity.

The attorney then suggested that she omitted the information because she had not gone back to Ruddock to ask him about the names after speaking to other persons.

“That is not in my statement,” the witness replied.

Williams also questioned the detective about the policewoman whose gun was allegedly used by Smith to fire at the police.

A church member had testified that, on the night of the deadly incident, Smith summoned the policewoman and instructed her to hand over her weapon, which he then used to fire at the police.

He said Smith, after emptying the first magazine, called the woman for a second magazine, and she complied.

Answering Williams’ question, the witness maintained that she had searched the policewoman’s bag and found a firearm.

She confirmed that she had seen a Glock 26, which she described as the policewoman’s private firearm.

Asked whether she swabbed the woman’s hands, the witness said she did not personally conduct the swabbing but had instructed that the woman’s hands be swabbed.

Williams asked the purpose of the instruction.

The witness said it was part of the investigation and was based on the circumstances and information she had received.

She said the swabbing was also connected to utterances made by the policewoman.

Williams asked whether the policewoman had been charged with any offence apart from breaches of the Disaster Risk Management Act.

“I did not charge her,” the witness replied.

The trial will continue today in the Home Circuit Court before Justice Leighton Pusey and the seven-member jury.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com