Evidence was sufficient to convict Neesa Gopaul killers – Appeal Court hears

Nov 12, 2020 News

Murdered: Neesa Gopaul.

Kaieteur News – Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Stacy Goodings, has contended that the evidence which led to the conviction and sentence of Bibi Gopaul and Jarvis ‘Barry’ Small for the murder of Neesa Gopaul was sufficient.
Goodings addressed a bench of Justices of Appeal which consisted of Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings –Edwards, and Justices Rishi Persuad and Dawn Gregory at the hearing of the case yesterday.
The appeal case was filed by Gopaul and her former lover, Small; the duo are hoping that the Appeal Court would overturn the guilty verdict as well as the combined 202 year-jail sentence, which they received for the murder of Gopaul’s 15 year-old daughter Neesa, whose partially decomposed body was found in a suitcase submerged in a creek along the Linden Soesdyke Highway in September 2010.
The teen had been reported missing days before her body was found in the suitcase along with a black gown, sheet, bank card and passport, bearing her name. A pair of dumbbells was also found strapped to the suitcase; the weights were reportedly to help keep the items hidden under water.
Police investigations later led to the arrest of the dead teen’s mother and her stepfather, Small.

Convicted: Jarvis Barry Small

Convicted: Bibi Gopaul.

In 2015, Justice Navindra Singh sentenced Gopaul and Small to 106 years and 96 years in prison respectively after a mixed 12-member jury found them guilty of the crime. Shortly after, the duo moved to challenge the conviction and sentence in the Appeal Court.
The second hearing of the case came up at the Appeal Court in Kingston yesterday, where attorneys continued to present their arguments—one side against and the others in favour of having the convicts exonerated of the crime.
Goodings, in response to questions about the evidence led in the trial and the judge’s directions to the jury as it regards such, held that the judge gave the jury adequate direction on various types of evidences presented in the trial. According to Goodings, the trial judge gave the jury directions on what is meant by circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.
“The trial judge had explained, your Honours, that, unlike direct evidence, where there is circumstantial evidence, the jury must connect the dots of what is presented or inferred,” Goodings told the Apellate Judges.
Further, the State Prosecutor told the Court that the Judge in his directions on circumstantial and direct evidence reminded the jury not to speculate.
“He even stressed that the accused don’t have to prove or disapprove anything. It is for the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said.
Justice Cummings-Edwards noted that there were general directions handed to the jury and not anything specific to the circumstantial or direct evidence but Goodings referred to various sections of her written submission, which she claimed the evidence and directions given by the trial justice was sufficient for the two persons to be convicted and sentenced for murder.
In his oral submission Defence Counsel, Arud Gossai who is representing Gopaul, contended that he believes that the Assistant DPP misconstrued his points on the evidence, which was admitted in the trial.
The lawyer noted, among other things, that the trial judge had failed in its attempt to present the full case to the jury hence allowing the panel to focus on parts, which painted a guilty picture of the two accused persons.
Gossai pointed to an example whereby a police witness testified about collecting items from the home of Bibi Gopaul – sheets, and a mattress which appeared to have blood on them and took them to for testing – but the results later showed that the items did not have blood.
The lawyer claimed that he had gone through the judge’s summation at least five times but has not seen any part of this important piece of information.
“It was omitted…,”he declared adding that leaving out that very crucial piece of evidence could have resulted in the jury finding his client guilty for the crime, when the evidence points in a different direction.
Additionally, the attorney emphasized too that the Judge failed to give directions on the prejudicial evidence of the State’s main witness Simone De Nobrega. The lawyer relied on previous and written submissions on this point.
Previously, both Gossai and Nigel Hughes, attorney for Small, had argued that prejudicial evidence presented in the trial led the Court to find his clients guilty for murder. The lawyers claimed that the trial judge erred and misdirected the jury on several issues brought out in the trial including the evidence led by the prosecution’s alleged star witness, De Nobrega, who shared a lockup cell with Gopaul.
Hughes noted specifically that the only evidence led in the trial, which allegedly linked his client, to the murder is “a pair of dumbbells which were found submerged in a creek, along with the body of the teenage victim.”
The dumbbells, the lawyer noted, were purportedly identified by witnesses in the trial as the ones that belonged to Small.
However, the lawyer pointed out that, “No one knew how those dumbbells got there. All they had was a pair of dumbbells purportedly belonging to Mr. Small. There was no evidence led that could have tied him to the crime scene or the crime.”
Hughes contended further that based on the records of the trial, it is clear that the judge’s decision to overrule an application to sever the indictment resulted in highly prejudicial evidence being led against his client.
Similarly, Gossai had noted that the trial judge erred in law by admitting evidence, which was more prejudicial than probative. According to him, with regards to De Nobrega, the judge failed to properly caution the jury on the effect of her evidence.
“The judge failed to put to them the fact De Nobrega was facing charges for crimes of dishonesty,” he stated. Gossai stressed further that while the judge promised to properly guide the jury on the evidence of the cellmate confession, he stopped short in his warning calling on them to only be mindful of her alleged confession.
He held that if the jury were given a fair warning that De Nobrega “was tainted by crimes of dishonesty or in Guyanese paradox someone who can con you,” they would have been in a better position to decide whether they believe the story she told or not.
In response to the arguments of the attorneys, Goodings had noted among other things that the evidence of De Nobrega was not inadmissible but rather relevant and cogent evidence against the accused.

Goodings emphasized that trial judge cautioned members of the jury that De Nobrega, at the time when the story was told to her, was not a convicted prisoner but was awaiting trial and it is not unknown for such a person to place themselves in favour of the police. Goodings nonetheless said that she agreed with the defence lawyers as it regards the severity of the sentence.