Neesa Gopaul murder trial …Only a heartless mother could watch somebody else kill her child –Prosecutor

Mar 05, 2015 News

---

The murder trial of Bibi Shareema Gopaul and her former lover Jarvis Barry Small should end today.

After hours of testimonies and a month long trial, Justice Navindra Singh will sum up the evidence presented in the murder trial for which  the two persons are accused of killing 16-year- old Queen’s College student Neesa Gopaul.
A total of 27 witnesses were called upon to testify in the trial by State Prosecutors Diana Kaulesar, Mercedes Thompson and Stacey Goodings.
Small and Gopaul have been on trial for killing the teen, whose remains were recovered on October 2, 2010, at a creek along the Soesdyke/Linden Highway days after she was reported missing from her Leonora, West Coast Demerara residence.
The remains were found in a suitcase, along with a passport and bank card bearing the name Neesa Lalita Gopaul.  A red rope was wrapped around the suitcase and to the end, dumbbells were attached in an apparent effort to keep the body under water.
On Tuesday, Defence Counsel, Lyndon Amsterdam and George Thomas, who are among a five member

legal team representing the two accused, submitted their closing arguments.
The courtroom was packed to capacity yesterday, as State Prosecutor Diana Kaulesar made her closing arguments.  She asked the jury to look at the evidence and consider that the statements of witnesses corresponded.
The State Attorney recounted the evidence which the witnesses presented in the trial.
As she reviewed the evidence Kaulesar noted that it is a sad thing for any parent to have to bury child but what is worst is for a mother to join with her lover to cold-bloodedly murder and dispose of her own child.
This, she firmly held, is the case against Bibi Shareema Gopaul and Jarvis Barry Small. Kaulesar went on to tell the court that the accused is not just a mother, but a mother who had more than one motive – to get rid of her child.
The Prosecutor recounted that the defence counsel had told the jury not to believe the testimony of star witness Simone De Nobrega. However, she noted that the witness could not have told the court those things if they were not told to her.
De Nobrega had testified that Gopaul admitted to poisoning her husband and that she wanted his body exhumed in an effort to get rid of the evidence.
She noted that against this backdrop,  Defence George Thomas had suggested  that his client would not have

asked De Nobrega for help to dig up her husband’s  body since she had her father and other relatives who could have assisted her if she so desired.   Prosecutor Kaulesar debunked this suggestion.
She noted that the woman would have been ashamed to approach her father, an assistant Imam with such things given that he is a principled man who is very serious about his religion.
“You saw him; he testified in this court,” Kaulesar added
Kaulesar went on to note that Gopaul said she was married to her husband for a few weeks short of 20 years before he passed but she never said that it was a loving marriage.
“You heard that she (Gopaul) told police that Small was the only man that ever made her feel like a woman.”
She noted that this was proof that Small had “such a hold” on Gopaul that he encouraged her to poison her husband and get rid of her daughter after the girl found out the truth about her father’s death.
The Prosecutor then recalled that both De Nobrega and Officer Caesar testified that Gopaul related to police investigators that she caught her daughter and lover in a compromising position.
The Prosecutor noted that both the police and De Nobrega said that Gopaul talked of having an altercation with her daughter after finding her in the arms of her lover.
“Tell me! After finding her daughter in a compromising position with her lover was she treating her as her daughter at the time or as her competition?” The woman had more than one motive to commit the murder, the prosecutor said.
Prosecutor Kaulesar then underlined the fact that the accused could not keep her story straight.
Gopaul claimed that after she reported to the police that Small had assaulted her and sexually molested her teenage daughter, that he threatened to take Neesa out of the picture if she did not rebut the allegations therefore, she signed an affidavit to withdraw only the assault charge.
However the State Counsel pointed out that Gopaul never rebutted one allegation. She sought to rebut both matters with the affidavit.  Kaulesar noted that the woman even returned to the police with her daughter where she had the girl recant the sexual assault report against Small.
Kaulesar pointed out that it was less than two weeks after the police report of sexual assault was made and instructions were given for Small to be arrested for carnal knowledge, that Neesa went missing and her body turned up days later.
“They were doing all that could be done to ensure that he didn’t go to jail. Ask yourself, if the police had arrested Small would Neesa be alive today.
“That bright young woman with her whole future ahead of her… It was snuffed out by those two,” the State attorney added, pointing  to the prisoners’ dock.
The prosecutor also dismissed Gopaul’s claims that her daughter had become rude and disrespectful to the point that she would sleep out and leave the home without her consent.
Kaulesar noted that the girl’s grandfather, Mohamed Kayum, who was quite involved in the lives of his grandchildren never confirmed that he had any record of the teenager sleeping out or that she had previously run away from home.
The prosecutor held that Neesa’s attitude would be the reaction of any normal teenager given that her father passed and in matter of weeks another man had moved into their home to replace him.
“ She (Gopaul) said this because she wanted to believe that it was possible that Neesa might have run off,” the State Counsel said.
The only person that would have access to the girl’s passport and bank card at that time would have been her mother, she added.
“Only her mother would have had access to these things and could have put them in that suitcase.”  Based on the evidence the plan was to dump the body at the desolate location where it would never be found.
The prosecution then emphasized that based on the evidence presented by the Government Pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh, there were signs of vital reaction to wounds which the victim sustained. She noted that this meant Neesa Gopaul was very much alive when those blows were inflicted.
“She felt the pain; she felt the fear and she was dying as her mother looked on….” the prosecutor said.  She noted that the girl begged her mother, “Mommy, mommy don’t kill me,” as Small attempted to strangle her with a piece of rope.
“Only a heartless mother could calmly walk out of a car and watch somebody else kill her child.”
At this point, some female members of the audience became emotional.
However Small remained expressionless as he sat in the prisoners’ dock. Gopaul bowed her head with her hands clasped tightly and her lips moving.
Given that the Defence questioned the credibility of the DNA analysis, Prosecutor Kaulesar noted the DNA analysis conducted on the lung sample taken from the victim revealed that it is a 99.98 probability that the sample came from a female offspring of Bibi Shareema Gopaul.
She said that the only inference that could be drawn from that evidence is that the body belonged to Neesa Gopaul.
The Defence had also questioned the sequence in which the witnesses related their portions of evidence. In response, Prosecutor Kaulesar noted that the only people who can tell what exactly happened to Neesa Gopual are the people who killed her.
“And ladies and gentlemen those two persons are seated in the dock.”
She also held that what Barry Small said in his defence can be nothing but a complete lie. Kaulesar said that the accused had admitted to telling the police he had information as it related to the teen’s murder.
“Officers David and Jessamy both testified that Small told them he knew who murdered the girl.”
Small had also claimed that his relationship with Bibi Gopaul had ended long before her daughter went missing. However, the Prosecutor pointed to portions of evidence which suggested otherwise.
Kaulesar noted that several witnesses (some of whom claimed to be Small’s friends) had testified that they would have called Barry to find out whether he was at his house or at Gopaul’s before they could meet and hang out.
One of the witnesses (Tiwari), the Prosecutor recalled, had even testified that shortly before the incident, he picked up “Barry and Nari” (Bibi Gopaul) from a hotel in Parika. She added that several witnesses also confirmed the dumbbells which were recovered from the scene belonged to Small.
The State Attorney noted this proved that the two persons were in an ongoing relationship when they planned the murder.
Kaulesar told the jury not to believe the Small’s deceitful demeanor when he related that he is a Christian man and a family man as he was using this to play with their emotions.
Small’s attorneys had likened his trial to that of Jesus Christ given their view of an inadequate police investigation and lack of evidence used in charging the accused.
In response Prosecutor Kaulesar noted that Small has been “accused of being a child molester wife beater and murderer. He cannot compare to Jesus.” ( Rehanna Ramsay)

---

---