Dredge owner was killed during row over money -trial hears

Feb 20, 2018 News

---

Dredge owner, Timothy Adams, was killed during a row over an outstanding payment he had for Marlon Freeman, his former employee, who is on trial for the murder. The killing occurred on December 22, 2013 at Turtle Creek Road, Five Star Backdam, North West District.
This was revealed to the court yesterday by Police Detective Corporal, Brian James, when the trial continued before Justice James Bovell Drakes and a 12-member mixed jury at the High Court in Georgetown. Corporal James is presently stationed at the Leonora Police Station and is attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). During December 2013, he was however, stationed at the Port Kaituma Police Station where he was attached to the CID.
Recounting his role in the investigation into the murder of Adams, Corporal James said that on Christmas Day 2013, he contacted Freeman and put an allegation of murder to him.
According to the detective, he cautioned the murder accused in accordance with the judge’s rule. He said that the man he elected to give a statement.  “I told (Freeman) of his rights, that he can have a lawyer or family member present. He (Freeman) said that he don’t want to have any lawyer or family member present.”
“I told him that he could write the statement himself or have anyone of his choice to do so for him. He asked me to write down what he wanted to say.”
Corporal James said that Freeman told him that he went into Five Star Backdam for the first time in October 2013 to work with Adams. He said that Freeman told him that he worked with Adams for about a year before “they got wrong” after Adams accused him of stealing some gold.
The police witness said Freeman explained that he quit working for Adams, who had owed him some money.
The detective added that Freeman related to him that he asked Adams for his payment and he promised that he would get it within a week’s time.
Freeman, Corporal James said, related to him that on the day in question, he was making his way to another backdam when he saw Adams, who was behind him on an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV).
According to Corporal James, Freeman recounted that he asked Adams for his outstanding salary and an argument broke out between them during which he stabbed him to the neck with a spoon he had sharpened.
“I see he (Adams) go by he waist and I didn’t know if he had a gun,” Corporal James said Freeman told him.
The witness recalled that the murder accused told him that he got nervous after Adams collapsed so he ran into the backdam.
After the taking of the statement, Corporal James said that he read it over to Freeman and also gave it to him to read. He added that Freeman looked over the statement as though he was reading it and indicated to him that everything was correct.
The court heard from the police witness, “I told him that he could add, alter or correct anything in the story. He said that he was satisfied that I had written down exactly what he had said.”
Corporal James said that Freeman affixed his signature to the statement.
During cross examination by State Prosecutor Lisa Cave, the witness was asked if he had obtained information on Freeman’s educational background. He responded in the affirmative and related that Freeman informed him that he attended the Wismar Secondary School up to the ninth grade. Questioned as to if he offered Freeman $250,000 in exchange for him to gave a statement, Corporal James said “no”, adding that he held out no promises, threats or used physical violence for the murder accused to gave the statement.
Freeman’s Attorney-at-law, Folio Richards suggested to the police witness that he did not read the last declaration on the caution statement form to Freeman. The last declaration says something to this effect, “I have been told that I ought not to say anything. But anything I say will be taken down into writing and given in evidence.”
In response to the suggestion, Corporal James said that from his knowledge the last declaration is only put to an accused when they elect to write their statement themselves. Attorney-at-Law Richards further suggested to the witness that the last declaration has to be read to an accused whether or not they elect to write their own statement. But Corporal James maintained his first answer.
Taking the witness back to his evidence in chief, the lawyer reminded Corporal James that he made no mention of her client’s educational background.  The police witness conceded that he made no mention of Freeman’s educational status in his evidence in chief.
The lawyer took the witness back to his initial statement in which he mentioned that the accused told him that he could read a “bit”. When asked to explain his interpretation of a “bit”, the police witness said that from his understanding of the term means that someone is capable of doing whatever is asked of them to some extent.
This trial is continuing.

---

---