Defence: No evidence on Melville

THERE is no evidence linking attorney Joseph Melville to charges of conspiracy to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, or assault. There is no motive why Melville, an attorney with a good reputation, would want to do such a thing against his secretary Patricia Cox. In fact, the prosecution has brought witnesses with bad characters to give evidence against Melville. This was stated by Melville’s attorney Nathaniel King as he addressed a nine-member jury and four alternates yesterday. Melville and taxi-driver Hilton Winchester are before Justice Melville Baird in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court on a four-count indictment. They are charged with conspiracy to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and assaulting Patrick Cox on June 28, 2001, at Cumberland Hill, St James.

Both King and Thomas Cunningham, who represent Winchester, addressed the jury yesterday. When hearing resumes this morning, State prosecutor Trevor Ward will respond. In his address, King asked the jury not to try this case by prejudice or emotion. He asked the jurors to show no sympathy for Patricia Cox or pity for the accused Melville. “Try the accused on the evidence,” he pleaded. King said that Melville was never at Cumberland Hill, although the prosecution contended that Melville conspired with others to murder Cox. “The prosecution is saying that the accused conspired to murder Patricia Cox, and anything which happened during the course of that journey, then he is guilty. They are saying that.”

King pointed out that two prosecution witnesses said two different things about the same subject. “They will ask you to believe one and not the other. Patricia Cox is a witness of a very bad character. She has been charged by the police with fraud. “The police say they will grant her an immunity, but for them to do so, Cox must testify against the accused. “Do you think that Patricia Cox will tell the Government she is not testifying against the accused? She cannot. She is not untainted. She has an interest to serve. She has admitted that she lied.” King said the prosecution did not disclose to the defence that they brought witnesses with convictions. He said one of the witnesses was a common thief who was convicted and who went to jail. “Do you believe this witness was going on a tower to see nature? Do you believe that? He wasn’t there at all. Why would the prosecution bring somebody who is a false witness?” King asked.