Neesa Gopaul trial …Photographs of mother’s home tendered into evidence

Feb 12, 2015 News

---

Photographic   exposures which were taken at the home of Bibi Shareema Gopaul was yesterday tendered as part of the evidence in the High Court trial for which Gopaul and her former lover, Jarvis Small, are facing an indictment.

They are charged with the murder of 16-year-old Queen’s College student, Neesa Gopaul.
Yesterday, Police Constable, Delicia Brown, took the stand and submitted sworn evidence before Justice Navindra Singh and a mixed 12-member jury.
In her evidence, Brown recalled that on October 4, 2010 she was on duty at the Police Crime Lab at the headquarters in Eve Leary when she was summoned to a residence at Lot 13 Public Road Leonora, West Coast Demerara, (WCD).
Brown said that when she arrived at Leonora she met with “Assistant Superintendent of Police, (ASP) Terrace Paul, Assistant Commissioner Marlon Chapman, officer Nedd, Mohamed Kayoum and  Bibi Gopaul,” whom she identified yesterday as the individual sitting in the prisoner’s dock in the courtroom.
She said that ASP Paul gave her certain instructions and as a result she took photographic exposures of the external view of the house, as well as the interior of the lower flat of the building.
The witness recalled that she took photos of various objects in the house including a mattress and two sheets bearing a reddish substance that appeared to be blood.

The witness said that she also took photographs of two black suitcases and a “pulley” suitcase containing a knife, cosmetics as well as male and female clothing. The latter, she said, was situated on a dining table in the upper flat of the house.
The Officer told the court that she was subsequently summoned to a verandah at the back of the house where she took photos of two sets of dumbbells.
She said that she took the exposures to the crime lab where they were processed and developed the following day. Brown said that several of the photos were printed. The witness said that she placed her markings (initials), the date and stamped the photographs with the police photographic stamps before placing them in a white envelope which she also sealed, stamped and placed her initials.
Brown recounted that she also placed the negatives of the exposures in a white envelope, which she stamped, sealed and initialed. The witness told the court that she could have identified the envelopes by the markings she had placed on them.
However after giving her evidence in chief, Prosecutor Diana Kaulesar requested for Brown to be shown one of the envelopes to see whether she could have identified it; her request met with objections from defence counsel, Glenn Hanoman who noted that the Prosecution should be specific as to which envelope

since the witness had mentioned two white envelopes on which she had placed her markings.
Justice Singh made a note of the objection but thereafter allowed the witness to see the envelope, based on a submission by the prosecution.
The witness subsequently identified the envelope containing the photographs.  There were altogether 22 photographs which were marked as exhibits and tendered as evidence in the trial.
The witness was afterward asked to give the court descriptions of the photographs that she had taken at the house ; she handed them over to members of the jury, who also examined them.
Under cross examination, Brown later admitted that some of the photographic exposures were spoiled but she could not say how many of the pictures had been damaged.
Attorney George Thomas who is representing Gopaul in the matter then asked the witness whether she had seen the mattress anywhere else before she took a photograph of it. The officer replied in the affirmative. She said that “the mattress had been in a room upstairs.”
“Would you be able to say whether the mattress was taken anywhere for any scientific tests? “ Thomas asked.  “No sir, “Brown replied maintaining that all she did in relation to the matter was take photographic exposures based on instruction of her superiors.
Assistant Commissioner, Marlon Chapman, was also under cross examination by the defence yesterday.
Chapman told the court that Neesa Gopaul’s grandfather, Mohamed Kayoum, had identified her body based on distinguishing marks and a mark on her toenail.
Defence Counsel, Lyndon Amsterdam questioned the witness about the reason of the police for collecting DNA samples from the number two accused, ( Bibi Gopaul) after the body would have been already identified to be that of Neesa Gopaul’s by the grandfather.
Chapman responded by saying that he believed that it was for confirmation; he said that police just wanted to be sure.
Amsterdam also questioned the witness as to the basis of the charges brought against the two accused and adequacy of the investigations.  After noting that there were a number of unanswered questions surrounding the investigations the lawyer inquired from the officer whether it is regular procedure for the police to charge persons based on mere suspicion.
“You would agree with me that the police still wanted to know how this person  met her demise, where she might have met her demise since (the location) where the body was found is not definitive as to where she might have met her demise?” Amsterdam inquired.
“Yes sir,” the officer responded but later explained that in instances of murder, the police charge persons based on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, (DPP).   He further stated that even if there is no “direct evidence,” against the suspects in cases of murder, once there is evidence none –the- less a charge can be instituted.
Amsterdam then inquired from the witness if anyone had asked Small where he had been between September 24 and October 3, 2010 since those are the dates mentioned in the charge.
At the point, the judge stopped the attorney and pointed out that such questions would lead to “hearsay. “
The lawyer continued by questioning the officer about the confrontation exercise which he mentioned. Amsterdam inquired from the witness whether he was certain about the information he provided in the trial.
Chapman had previously stated that during the exercise the number one accused Small had told police investigators that he “would tell them who killed Neesa Gopaul but only in the presence of his attorney Bernard De Santos, (SC).”
As such Amsterdam inquired from the witness whether, Small had voluntarily told police this or whether he was responding to questions put to him by ASP Jessimy.
“I can’t recall,” Chapman said acknowledging that a question might have been put to the accused. The lawyer then suggested to the witness that Small had said that “he would tell the police who he thought might have killed Neesa Gopaul.”
The witness maintained his initial statement but noted that he had not been taking notes during the confrontation. Amsterdam then inquired whether the witness took any steps to see if the other officer who had been taking notes were writing the direct words of the accused.
“No,” Chapman responded maintaining that he is certain of the words the accused had said at that time.
Under cross examinations by attorney George Thomas, the witness was asked about Simone De Nobrega, whom he had mentioned while giving his evidence in chief.
Chapman explained that De Nobrega was a female prisoner, who was in custody at the East La Penitence Police Station; she was on remand for a number of fraud related charges.  The witness also noted that De Nobrega was known to the police. She was also known by at least two other names.
The trial continues today.

---

---