Witness to deadly police shooting never expected she’d end up in court

A prosecution eyewitness in the trial of six policemen charged in the 2013 fatal shooting of three men on Acadia Drive in St Andrew told the Home Circuit Court yesterday that she had no intention of testifying and was “extremely surprised” when she was later called as a witness in the case.

The woman testified that she and her partner had written an anonymous letter to the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) on the day of the January 12, 2013, incident after observing the events from the window of their third-floor apartment but said she never expected that it would lead to her appearing in court.

Under cross-examination by defence attorney Hugh Wildman, the witness said she had even told an INDECOM investigator that she did not intend to testify.

According to her, the investigator responded that there would be no need for her to come to court.

“So you were surprised that you were being called as a witness?” Wildman asked.

“Extremely surprised,” she replied.

The woman explained that the letter she and her partner wrote was meant only to alert investigators to what they had observed.

She, however, denied that the content of the letter was filled with inaccuracies because of her intention not to attend court.

Questioned further about whether she regarded what she had written as important, the witness agreed.

The witness, who had previously testified that she did not know how the letter had got to INDECOM, when pressed about her lack of follow-up, said her partner later told her he would have delivered it.

“If my partner says he’s going to get it there, then he’s going to get it there. I don’t need to question him any further on it. It was an anonymous letter, and I moved on with my life,” she said.

Wildman also questioned the witness about the preparation of her statement to INDECOM, suggesting that investigators had assisted in compiling it.

The witness, in response, said that while giving her statement, she was asked questions by an INDECOM officer, which she said helped guide her responses.

Wildman also grilled the witness about her movements on the day of the incident.

At one point, the witness pushed back, telling the court that the day in question was not a memorable one for her.

“You seem to think that this day is entrenched in my memory, and it is not,” she said.

“I cannot remember everything that happened this day 13 years ago. It was a regular day.”

Despite acknowledging gaps in her recollection of the day’s earlier activities, the witness maintained that she did observe police firing at a man who was running from a vehicle and attempting to jump over a wall.

“A man is running, gunshots are firing toward him and he falls. Is there another way you’re shot?” she asked during the exchange.

When pressed about whether she actually saw a bullet strike the man, she replied: “Do you see when the bullet enters his body? Is that what you are asking? No, I did not see when the bullet entered.”

She added that in her recollection, police were firing behind the man before he fell.

“Police firing behind him, the man then falling, in my memory constitutes as being shot,” she said, adding unless she was expected to see the bullets ‘ripping through the man’s body like in The Matrix”.

“That is right,” Wildman replied. “I am asking you a simple question. Your antics are not relevant.”

The exchange then became heated, prompting a sharp response from the witness.

“I don’t know why you think I would present myself here, leave my good work, lose compensation, and subject myself to your bigotry, misogynistic, sexist, chauvinistic self. I don’t know why you think I would take up myself, come here to tell a lie, to subject myself to you – the likes of you,” she said.

ACCUSED OF GOADING

Pyke quickly intervened, accusing Wildman of deliberately angering and goading the witness as part of his strategy and urging him to show respect.

“My friend needs to behave himself and behave with respect toward everyone,” she said, adding that the witness had clearly reacted to the manner in which the questioning was conducted.

The presiding judge later cautioned Wildman about his tone and reminded him to conduct his cross-examination in keeping with the rules of evidence and professional ethics.

During questioning by defence attorney Anthony Armstrong, the witness said she did not see any of the three men with weapons in their hands except for one of the men, who she described as Indian and who appeared to have paper in his hand.

She also testified that she could not say whether any of the policemen had been shot at and had not observed any of them with injuries.

Asked whether she had heard a gunfight before approaching the window, the witness insisted that she heard only a single gunshot.

Pressed about information in her statement that one of the men inside the vehicle had been covering his ear, the witness said she had written that but had later conceded that the detail came from her partner’s recollection after acknowledging that she had earlier testified that she could not see inside the car from where she was standing.

When asked about a sketch of the crime scene included in her statement, she explained that the drawing had been provided by INDECOM and that she had only labelled it.

Although five policemen were marked on the sketch, the witness said she could not recall a fifth officer from her memory.

NOT POSTPARTUM

During further questioning, Armstrong raised the fact that the witness had recently given birth at the time of the incident and asked about the impact of being in the postpartum phase.

The witness clarified that while she had mentioned being in the postpartum period, the six weeks following childbirth, this did not mean she was suffering from postpartum depression.

She described the event as “shocking” but said she would not describe it as personally stressful because she was not directly involved.

Under further cross-examination by defence attorney Michelle Clarke, the witness said she did not provide a physical description of the policemen but instead described the clothing they were wearing.

Attorney Linda Wright also questioned the witness about the man in the white shirt who she had earlier said she saw sitting before later observing him lying down after hearing a gunshot.

The witness said she did not see his hands and that his side was turned towards her.

She also testified that she did not hear any of the men or policemen speaking and could not say who fired the first gunshot or where it came from.

Additionally, she said she did not witness policemen dragging the man she described as Indian from the car.

When asked whether she might have been mistaken about a fifth policeman, the witness said she did not believe she was mistaken but admitted that to date, she has had no clear memory of that person.

Simroy Mott, 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 in the Home Circuit Court.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com