GARDNER'S DAD WANTS DEATH PENALTY - Father of slain woman says hanging is deserved punishment for convicted Ruddock as defence vows appeal

Septimus Gardner never doubted that Andre Ruddock would be found guilty of murdering his daughter, Taneka, but said he wished hanging was still an option, as he believes death is the punishment the convicted killer deserved.

“A life sentence is the right way, but mi only sorry say dem caa resume back hanging,” he said, when asked what sentence he was hoping for his daughter’s killer.

Ruddock, who was charged with the October 17, 2021 murder of the 39-year-old mother of two, was found guilty by a 6-1 majority verdict after the six-woman, one-man jury was sent back twice to continue its deliberations.

The jury initially returned a 5-2 majority verdict after deliberating for approximately 38 minutes. However, Justice Leighton Pusey directed the jurors that they would have to deliberate for at least two hours before a majority verdict could be accepted.

After returning eight minutes later with the same 5-2 split, they were sent back again and instructed to deliberate for an additional hour, with the judge telling them not to return before 2:47 p.m.

At precisely 2:47 p.m., the jury returned with a 6-1 guilty verdict.

Ruddock, who was dressed in a mustard shirt with black stripes and gold pants, appeared dejected as the verdict was handed down.

Asked how he felt about the verdict, Septimus said he was pleased with the outcome, noting that it was what he had expected.

“That is justice ‘cause the man, in fact, although me wasn’t there, do it, so him can’t go ‘round it, although him try.

“He couldn’t go ‘round the guilty verdict. Too much witnesses [were] there who see what happened. I never had no doubt that him can go ‘round it,” said Septimus.

Gardner, who was driving home as he spoke with The Gleaner, said he had not yet spoken with his relatives to see how they received the news.

He, however, dismissed as a joke claims made by Ruddock during his testimony that the now-deceased church leader Kevin Smith had told him that he and his daughter were involved in a relationship and that she had contracted HIV.

Laughing, Gardner said it was the first time he was hearing the claims.

“Even if something go like dat, a yuh go look wah yuh want, and whatever yuh get outta dat a fi yuh business. And so dat no justify you fi killing somebody. If yuh no waan protect yuhself, a fi yuh business dat,” he said.

Ruddock, the 36-year-old farmer and former security guard for Smith, was charged with murdering Gardner at the Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries in St James during a bizarre evening service.

The Crown alleged that Ruddock slashed Gardner’s throat on Smith’s instructions. It also presented a caution statement and a subsequent question-and-answer session in which Ruddock admitted to the killing and claimed he had acted on Smith’s instructions. Both were video-recorded.

During the trial, which began on September 17, the prosecution called 12 witnesses, including an eyewitness, who was Smith’s attendant and a junior minister in training. Ruddock was the sole witness for the defence.

The attendant testified that he heard Smith instruct that Gardner’s throat be slashed. He said Ruddock and another church member, who was appointed an archangel for the service, were present when the instruction was given and that Ruddock nudged the other man before running towards Gardner.

Among the witnesses was a detective constable, who testified that Ruddock had confessed to the killing at the murder scene.

However, while giving sworn testimony, Ruddock denied killing Gardner and accused the police of forcing him to take the blame. He alleged that he was physically assaulted and threatened by the detective constable, who he claimed pointed a firearm at him and dictated what he should say.

Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions LaToya Bernard and Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Carolyn Wright prosecuted the case.

When approached for comment after the verdict, Bernard said, “It has been a long trial and the jury has spoken.”

Meanwhile, Ruddock’s defence attorney, Anthony Williams, said the legal team had been instructed to appeal the conviction, maintaining that his client had received the best possible representation.

Williams, who appeared alongside junior counsel Venice Brown, said the defence had been optimistic about securing an acquittal, pointing to what he described as extensive cross-examination of the prosecution’s main witness and other witnesses.

“They were discredited, they were undermined, and we think we made very good progress. But at the end of the day, the jurors are the judges of the fact, and they have concluded the fact that our expectation was not theirs,” he conceded.

Williams also defended the decision to put Ruddock on the witness stand, saying it was necessary, given the gravity and notoriety of the case and the amount of evidence presented against him.

He said the defence believed it was an excellent decision, adding that there was a public perception of guilt when an accused person remained in the dock rather than testifying.

“And as far as we’re concerned, the prosecution made an attempt to discredit him, but he was not discredited at all, in our opinion,” he said.

Williams said the defence had maintained that it was Smith who cut Gardner’s throat, and that Ruddock’s caution statement and question-and-answer session had been obtained under duress.

The attorney rejected suggestions that the defence had been caught off guard when Ruddock testified that the police had told him to take the murder charge.

“We were not blindsided at all,” he said, adding that preparation was central to proper legal representation.

Williams also defended the decision not to call additional witnesses, explaining that an accused person had no obligation to present witnesses and that the burden rested squarely on the prosecution to prove guilt.

Additionally, Williams said Ruddock had not instructed him to call any other witnesses. However, he had indicated to the judge during the trial that the defence intended to call witnesses to corroborate its claims.

Asked what he believed may have swayed the jury against the defence, Williams suggested that the gruesome nature of the murder, the fact that the victim was a woman, the killing taking place on a church compound, and Jamaica’s high crime rate could have influenced the jurors.

Nonetheless, he said the jury’s difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict showed the defence had given them “food for thought”.

Williams said Ruddock was disappointed with the outcome but maintained his innocence.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com