Attorney uses courtroom prop to dramatise alleged weaknesses in Pathways murder case

Defence attorney Anthony Williams yesterday described the prosecution's case against murder accused Andre Ruddock as being “in shambles” and “covered in darkness”, while urging the seven-member jury to acquit his client.

However, lead prosecutor LaToya Bernard insisted that Ruddock had deliberately participated in the October 17, 2021 killing of Taneka Gardner at the Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries in St James.

“The wrong man is on trial,” Williams repeatedly declared during his closing address, arguing that the Crown had failed to prove Ruddock's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“The wrong man and the man who shouldn't be on trial, and the prosecution wants you to disabuse your mind from it, is that vicious, nefarious, outrageous pastor, Kevin Smith; he was the one who cut the throat. Mr Ruddock told you he saw that,” Williams said.

In a dramatic moment, Williams pulled out an umbrella and opened it over Bernard and her colleague Carolyn Wright as he described the prosecution's case as shrouded in darkness, drawing subdued laughter in the courtroom.

“The prosecution's case is covered in darkness,” he said, promising to show the jury the light.

He further described the case as riddled with lies and deceit, pointing to what he said was a lack of forensic evidence.

Williams launched a scathing attack on the credibility of the prosecution's eyewitness, a junior minister-in-training and former agitator for deceased church leader Kevin Smith, describing him as dishonest, deceitful and unscrupulous.

He questioned inconsistencies in the eyewitness's accounts, particularly concerning whether Gardner's head had been severed. He also criticised the police for failing to charge the witness despite what the defence said was evidence that he possessed an illegal firearm and ammunition.

“The prosecution is asking you to use a man worse than Peter to convict Mr Ruddock,” Williams said.

He also questioned why James' hands had not been swabbed and why forensic results relating to two knives seized during the investigation had not been presented.

“Where is the murder weapon?” he asked, questioning whether the knives had been tested for blood or fingerprints.

Williams also invoked biblical passages on truth and dishonesty, urging the jurors not to leave their Christian principles outside the courtroom. He cited Proverbs 12:22, which describes lying lips as an abomination, and argued that James had failed the test of scripture.

He further described the witness as a demon, pointing to his testimony that Smith had previously called him one.

Williams also challenged the evidence of a police constable who testified that Ruddock had confessed to the killing, arguing that the alleged confession was absent from the officer's statement.

He cautioned the jury against allowing the gruesome nature of Gardner's death to influence its decision.

“You cannot convict because of prejudice or sympathy or because she was a female,” he said, noting that the jury comprised six women and one man.

He described the evidence of the police witnesses as “undeniably catastrophic” and questioned why the policewoman whose firearm was allegedly used in the shooting had not been charged with an offence other than breaching the no-movement day restrictions.

Williams maintained that the prosecution had failed to discredit Ruddock, who chose to testify and subject himself to cross-examination despite having the option of remaining silent or making an unsworn statement.

“I ask of you to find Mr Ruddock not guilty of murder, not guilty of any offence,” he said.

Bernard, however, urged the jury to reject the defence's arguments, maintaining that Ruddock had deliberately participated in Gardner's murder and was not acting in self-defence.

“We, the Crown, say Andre Ruddock deliberately went and killed Taneka Gardner,” she said, arguing that he had no lawful reason for his actions.

Bernard said the central issue was the identity of Gardner's killer, as there was no dispute that she died after her throat was cut at the church.

She urged the jury to accept the eyewitness's evidence, describing him as a truthful witness whose testimony placed Ruddock at the church before the murder and linked him to the events leading up to it.

She reminded the jurors that the eyewitness testified that Smith had appointed Ruddock and Kian Ramsay Plummer as archangels, armed them with knives and instructed them to kill anyone who entered the church.

According to the witness, Smith later instructed that Gardner's throat be cut. Bernard argued that Ruddock acted deliberately when he ran towards Gardner and carried out the act.

“He was not forced. He deliberately and intentionally did it,” she said.

Addressing the defence's criticisms of the eyewitness, including allegations surrounding his possession of firearms and claims that he had fired at the police, Bernard cautioned the jury against being distracted by what she described as side issues.

“Don't be drawn out. This matter is not about guns and shooting,” she said.

She reminded the jury that the defence had promised to call witnesses to support its claim that the eyewitness had fired at the police but had failed to do so.

“Do not be drawn out with small fries and side order,” she said, adding that Gardner's death by knife had not been challenged.

Bernard argued that James' evidence should be assessed as a whole, noting that the incident occurred approximately five years ago.

“Everything can't be in the statement,” she said.

The prosecutor also challenged Ruddock's account that he had gone to the church to take down his cows before witnessing Smith killing Gardner.

She questioned how he could have entered the premises when the evidence indicated that the gates were closed and police officers had to rip away plywood boards to gain access.

Bernard further questioned why Ruddock had not told the first police officer he encountered that he had witnessed Smith killing Gardner.

“You walk in and see your pastor cut your church sister's throat and the first police you see and you don't say nothing. Me know if a me, me singing like a bird,” she said.

She also suggested that the defence had been caught off guard by Ruddock's account, arguing that if they had known he was claiming to have witnessed the killing and that police had told him to take the blame, they would have raised the matter with the police witnesses.

Bernard questioned why Ruddock had been singled out from among the 11 men he said were apprehended on the night of the incident and why he had not seized the opportunity to tell the police what he allegedly witnessed.

She also questioned why his caution statement did not mention that he had seen Smith kill Gardner.

“So you tell lie pon yourself,” she said.

The prosecutor noted that 42 questions were put to Ruddock during a question-and-answer session, all of which he answered.

She also dismissed his allegations that he had been assaulted by a police constable, referring to a video recording of his interaction with a sergeant and asking the jury whether he appeared to have been mistreated.

Bernard concluded that the prosecution had established all the elements of the murder charge, arguing that the eyewitness's testimony was supported by video evidence and photographs.

“I submit that the Crown has satisfied all the elements to prove that Ruddock committed the murder,” she said.

Presiding judge Justice Leighton Pusey is expected to begin his summation today.

editorial@gleanerjm.com