Neesa Gopaul murder trial nears conclusion…Defence points to sloppy police probe, deceitful star witness

Mar 04, 2015 News

---

Defence attorneys Lyndon Amsterdam and George Thomas yesterday delivered their closing addresses in the

trial for which Bibi Shareema Gopaul and Jarvis Barry Small are facing an indictment for the murder of 16-year-old Queen’s College student, Neesa Lalita Gopaul.
The teen’s remains were recovered on October 2, 2010, from a creek along the Soesdyke/Linden Highway after she was reported missing from her Leonora, West Coast Demerara residence several days earlier.
Following a police investigation, the girl’s mother (Bibi Shareema Gopaul) and Jarvis Small were arrested and charged for the murder. The former lovers are currently facing a trial before Justice Navindra Singh and 12– member jury at the High Court in Georgetown.
During the month-long proceeding, State Prosecutors, Diana Kaulesar, Stacey Gooding and Mercedes Thompson called a total of 26 witnesses to the stand.
Yesterday, the lawyers, comprising a five-member legal team representing Small and Gopaul, submitted their closing arguments.  In their submissions, the attorneys urged the jury to be mindful of the evidence, which was presented during the trial.

After refreshing the jury on various portions of the evidence, Attorney–at–Law Lyndon Amsterdam reminded the panel of the admonishment of the judge that they should not come to any conclusion in the trial until such time as directed by the trial judge. Amsterdam is representing the number one accused, Jarvis Barry Small.
He noted that it is the duty of the State to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the indictment for which they are charged.  Amsterdam said that this conclusion must be based on the evidence provided by State witnesses.  He noted that otherwise, the jury should find the two accused not guilty of the crime.
The attorney explained that the State must first prove that it was Neesa Gopaul who died, that she was indeed killed sometime between September 24 and October 3, 2010 (the dates mentioned in the charge) and that the two accused are the persons responsible for her death.
The lawyer, nonetheless pointed to the oversights by crime scene investigators. He noted that the evidence presented in the trial was contradictory to the point that it is ridiculous.
Amsterdam said that he would not blame the jury if they found difficulty understanding certain evidence, given that it is clear that the police investigations which led to such evidence left much to be desired;

questions which must be answered.
The lawyer recounted that under cross examination at least two of the leading investigators in the matter admitted that the police were in need of more time to carry out a proper investigation.
Amsterdam said that the poor and often times sloppy investigations led to uncertainty regarding the minutest of details as it relates to how the teen might have met her demise. The lawyer then pointed to evidence given by Corporal Floyd Hossanah and Corporal Germain Laundry, both of whom told the court that they visited the scene where the body was allegedly found.
Amsterdam noted that it was glaring that the officers could not give a reasonable account of how the investigations were conducted.  He noted that the officers could not recall the dates and time when they reportedly retrieved objects from a creek at the location.   He went on to relate the evidence which Officer Laundry told the court of retrieving a body then leaving the scene of the crime and returning two days later to collect dumbbells.
The attorney noted that Laundry told the court that he did not return immediately to the scene because he had to attend court and there was no transportation available for him to go back to the scene.
Amsterdam further stated that none of the officers could clearly say whether the area was properly cordoned off to ensure the evidence was not compromised. He noted too that during the course of their investigation none of the officers had asked anyone around the area the body was found whether they had seen or heard anything which might be useful to their investigation.
Pointing to the fact that the teen was reported missing days before the body was found, the attorney recalled that the police never inquired whether the girl had a cell phone, and neither did they go to her school to find out anything.
“No one checked her clothes to see if any was missing or asked the neighbours anything.”
“It just goes to show how poorly we investigate crimes in Guyana.  Are you telling me that those things only happen in movies or in CSI? Are you saying that in this country we will remain in the 17th century,” the lawyer added, noting that Officers Jessemy and Terrance David had also admitted that the police needed more time to carry out a proper and thorough investigation.
Amsterdam further recalled that the officers also admitted that when the charges were instituted against Small and Gopaul, the police still had not garnered enough evidence as it relates to who might have killed Neesa Gopaul.
He noted too that the relatives of the teenager never admitted to identifying the body. He related that the girl’s grandfather Mohamed Kayum said that the police told him that the body they found belonged to his granddaughter; he never personally identified the body.
“All we could hear throughout this trial is that they (the police) could not recall or they made mistakes… “ the attorney said.
He then turned to evidence presented by prosecution’s star witness, Simone De Nobrega. Amsterdam said that this portion of evidence could not be used in regards to Small, since it would be considered as hearsay; De Nobrega was simply repeating something which she claimed Bibi Gopaul had told her.
The attorney noted that De Nobrega gave an emotional testimony, but he reminded the jury that emotions should play no part in reviewing the evidence of a criminal proceeding.
Amsterdam emphasised that “the outcome must be based on hardcore evidence.” He noted too that De Nobrega had no genuine vested interest in the case or “wanted justice for Neesa,” as she claimed.
“If she spent one month in the New Amsterdam Prison she spent long…This is someone who is heartless, who is convicted for defrauding persons for money,” Amsterdam said. He urged the jurors to consider the person giving the evidence and the background of which she gave the testimony.
As such, he asked the jury to consider the case against Small and Gopaul separately. He told them that what De Nobrega said should not be used when considering the case against Small.
Amsterdam said that such things might lead to an unfair trial such that was lead against Jesus Christ that ended in his crucifixion.
Meanwhile Attorney-at-Law, George Thomas in his submissions noted that De Nobrega is a farce, considering that under cross examination the woman said she could not remember how much money she made from obtaining credit by false pretense but she was keen on remembering the entire story Bibi Gopaul had allegedly related to her.
De Nobrega had testified that she could not recall the details of the matter since it was simply a contractual agreement which went wrong, but in Gopaul’s case she remembered vividly the events since it was related to murder.
However, Thomas pointed to the fact that the witness could not say whether she had related the story in the sequence which it was allegedly told to her.
Thomas also pointed to the fact that Government Pathologist, Dr Nehaul Singh, gave evidence which suggested that the victim’s neck was in pristine condition, when De Nobrega in her evidence claimed that the girl had been strangled with a rope before her head was bashed in with a piece of wood.  Before concluding his arguments, the lawyer asked the jury to consider the logic in regards to the various portions of evidence.
The State will submit their closing address when the trial continues today.  (Rehanna Ramsay)

---

---