Latest update November 18th, 2024 1:00 AM
Latest News
- ExxonMobil eyeing 8th project despite Jagdeo says 7th ‘iffy’
- City Mayor slams govt. for favouring foreign companies over locals for tax concessions
- Pope Francis urges inquiry into Gaza genocide allegations
- New aircraft for GDF commissioned
- Importing truck drivers from Bangladesh, a disrespect to Guyanese – Norton
Void Dire held in “Picture Boy” trial
…20 soldiers, 12 policemen apprehended accused
A “Void Dire” (trial within a trial) commenced on Thursday as the trial into the murder of two East Coast Demerara brothers continued in the High Court against Cyon Collier called “Picture Boy”.
The “Void Dire” which is being heard by Justice Diana Insanally was conducted when the Defence Attorney for Collier, Lyndon Amsterdam, raised certain issues pertaining to a caution statement which the police reportedly obtained from the accused.
Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Wilson was the last witness to give his evidence that day. He testified that he was the one to
Cyon Collier called “Picture Boy”
take a caution statement from the accused following the shooting to death of brothers Ray Walcott called “Sugar” and Carl Andrews called “Alo” in September 23, 2006 at Victoria Four Corner, East Coast Demerara.
The senior rank’s testimony was that evidence given by the accused was obtained free and voluntarily, that no violence, threats or inducements were meted out to the accused. Attorney Lyndon Amsterdam however related something different from that of the officer’s testimony. At that point members of the jury had already been led out of court since they were not allowed to hear that aspect of the case.
The senior policeman testified that the caution statement was taken at the Cove and John Police Station in 2006. He said that the allegation was put to Collier and he narrated a story.
Prior to this, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Lyndon Lord attached to the Criminal Investigations Department returned to the stand to continue his evidence in the matter. According to Lord, he and a party of policemen, in a joint effort with the army, went to a location, Bachelor’s Adventure, after receiving certain information and was able to locate the accused.
While there, the policeman said another rank knocked on the door and the accused answered. Twenty soldiers and 12 policemen had gone to apprehend the accused and they were all armed with rifles and other firearms.
Lord said that the allegation of murder was put to the accused and the house was later searched. The officer recalled that on the day in question an AK rifle and a .25 pistol were found on the bed “where he was lying”. Thirteen live 7.62×39 rounds of ammunition were also found in the magazine.
Lord said he carried out further checks and found a pump action shotgun under the said bed and eight live 12 gauge cartridges.
On Thursday, Amsterdam highlighted what he said were discrepancies in particular aspects of the officer’s testimony given in the Magistrate’s Court and later in the High Court.
Lord agreed when Amsterdam stated that he (Lord) said in the High Court that the ammunition was found on the bed Collier on which he was laying, but made no mention of such when giving evidence in the Preliminary Inquiry(PI) in the Magistrate’s Court.
Lord agreed that in the High Court, he testified that following the murder allegation being put to Collier on the day of his arrest, he said something to the arresting rank but he (Lord) was unable to hear. Amsterdam however argued that no mention of that evidence was made in the Magistrate’s Court.
Amsterdam put to the policeman that although he testified to the ammunition found in the weapons during the raid, no mention was made about the guns being emptied to ascertain the bullets. The lawyer then argued that Lord was changing his testimony in response to him reportedly anticipating what his colleagues would say in their evidence.
Continuing in that line of questioning, Amsterdam asked the police officer whether he saw the statements of other police officers. The prosecution headed by Senior State Counsel Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, responded with strong objections.
The state representative claimed that Amsterdam’s questions were a direct attack on the prosecution and its integrity since the prosecution would be the one responsible for witness statements. The court overruled Amsterdam’s questions deeming them inappropriate.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Traditional media is still king
…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News-Election campaigns are a battle for attention, persuasion, and votes. In this digital age,... more
Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Weekend Cartoon
