Abu Bakr had the motive to kill Salim

YASIN ABU BAKR had the motive to kill Salim Rasheed. This was made clear by British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel when he addressed the jury on Wednesday in the conspiracy to murder trial of Jamaat Al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr. Cassel spent just one hour and 56 minutes to address the jury, leaving the way now for Justice Mark Mohammed to sum up the case. Justice Mohammed will begin his summation next Tuesday morning. The first part of Cassel’s address was carried in yesterday’s Newsday. The final part is published today.

(Cassel continues his address)

In making this judgment, you are entitled to take into account, Brent Danglade’s recitation of the Shahada. Abu Bakr’s visits to and from Brent Miller. His willingness to contribute to Miller’s legal costs. The statement to the police about Miller becoming a Muslim and joining the mosque. The two Brents’ jobs in the URP. Whether Brent Miller and “Buffy” were members of the Jamaat or not, their involvement in the MovieTowne shooting only makes sense if they are acting under orders. If they were acting under orders, whose orders? Who was in a position of authority over Buffy and Brent Miller? Who had a motive to kill Salim? One man and one man alone — the accused.

Coming now to the witnesses:
The most important of whom is Brent Miller. But he is not the only important witness. Brent Miller has an immunity from prosecution in relation to this shooting. He was cross-examined interminably about this immunity. For the State, I invite you to look at this evidence given under the immunity a great deal of care. Because this undoubtedly guilty man is getting away with this conspiracy scot free. However, it was said by Mrs Elder that it was unprecedented that an immunity has been granted in this way — in effect by a member of the DPP’s Department. Where is the evidence that this has never happened before? Mrs Elder does not have access to every case in Trinidad and Tobago.

What justifies this assertion? Like her claim that Brent Miller was in Biche on the 4th of June 2003, she has plucked this assertion out of the air. Quite disgracefully without any justification at all she has made the most wild and irresponsible allegation against a junior member of the prosecution team. That he put the idea of mentioning the Prime Minister into Brent Miller’s head. Before she makes allegations of impropriety against people, without any evidence whatsoever, let her look to her own conduct. When cross-examining Brent Miller she said ‘in dealing in drugs, you go to Chatham?’

Miller: What do I go to Chatham for?
Mrs Elder: Brent Miller — down Biche way.
Miller agreed he went to Biche.

She then suggested he went to Chatham/Biche, and that TSTT calls were made from his cell phone from that location on the 4th of June. On Mr Harnanan’s evidence she was entitled to put Chatham. But not Biche. She tried to explain this away by saying it was her style of cross-examination. That is no excuse for quite disgraceful behaviour of a senior counsel. Biche was undoubtedly plucked out of the air by Mrs Elder, with one intention and one only. To deceive the witness and to deceive the court. But it does not end there. According to Mr Harnanan, he told the defence team shortly after the newspapers reported the suggestion of Chatham/Biche being 441 under start cell, was meaningless. He certainly told them on 15-16 February at the latest. Having put something which turns out to be wrong, she was under an obligation to inform the court that she had done so and to withdraw the suggestion. She never did. We had to call Mr Ramlogan and Mr Ganeessingh.

The suggestion of Biche was a deliberate attempt by Mrs Elder quite dishonestly to deceive you. The failure at any stage to withdraw Chatham was equally a disgrace. Have we ever heard her withdraw the suggestion of Biche? Sorry I have got it wrong. Have we ever heard any explanation how she came to allege these calls were made from Biche which is miles away from Chatham? All we get is an assertion that we know her style. Indeed, when I complained at the end of Mr Ramlogan’s evidence of her conduct, she had the temerity to say she did not pluck this out of the air. And she would call evidence to show the basis of why she said what she said. That was untrue. No evidence has been called to justify putting to Miller that this call was made from the Biche area. We called Mr Ramlogan and Mr Ganeessingh on the 22nd of February, at least a week after Mrs Elder knew her suggestion about Chatham was wrong.

She has always known that the suggestion of Biche is wrong. She has never withdrawn her suggestion. She has the gall without evidence whatsoever to accuse a junior prosecutor of suborning a witness. She should be ashamed of herself. Please discount this unwarranted allegation against Mr Busby. Please do not hold her disgraceful conduct against the accused. I only refer to it in these strong terms because of her irresponsible and unwarranted allegations against my learned junior Mr Busby. It is a measure of Miller’s truthfulness that this dishonest suggestion that he was in Biche that day did not sway him from his evidence. While we are on the telephone records, it is the fact that they do not show calls to Miller’s mobile phone on the morning of the 4th of June 2003, the date of the shooting. He says he received the call on the very day of the shooting, in the morning.

There are five possible explanations.
* He is lying about the meeting, it never took place as suggested by the defence.
* He has got the day wrong. It was the previous day when he received the call. There were a number of calls to his mobile phone in the morning, and he went the following day.
* The meeting took place but he has either deliberately or mistakenly misrepresented how he was contacted to attend.
* It was he who made the call to Buffy.
* The morning calls could have been deleted by someone at TSTT.
* The information could have been corrupted by the processing software and logged in a database error file. The one percent chance referred to by Mr Ganeessingh.
* Finally, the call could have been made from the GSM Network. The only day we have for the GSM is the 5th. We do not have any other day.

It is of course for you to say which it is. I do not want to minimise the importance of the lack of any reference to morning calls that day. Far from being supported by the telephone record, his evidence tends to be undermined by it. It is a matter for your good judgment to set this evidence or lack of it against the rest of the case. But it seems very odd looking at the fraud check report there were 23 calls from land lines received on the 3rd, 20 on the 5th, 18 on the 6th. But only six on the 4th. Every day except the 4th showed a number of calls in the morning. Nothing on the morning of the 4th. A completely different pattern to the other days.

Yet on the mobile link, the pattern is the same. The 4th was not an exceptional day according to the mobile record. Nor was it abnormal to the calls from Miller’s phone. If it was Miller who made the call to Buffy, there were a number of calls made on that cell phone, 752-4338, on that morning at a consistent time. Not from Chatham or Biche. The alibi. Miss Marchand. This is formidable evidence for the defence. The record, but the question remains, how accurate is it? The primary question being, is the entry relating to the 4th of June genuine? Is she a truthful witness? Is she a reliable witness? Again we have to look at Mrs Elder’s conduct. She told you in open court that this witness had been threatened and described how shaken she was. It turned out she was not threatened at all, it was her secretary who had allegedly been threatened.

Furthermore, she plainly was not shaken. She was as cool as a cucumber in the witness box. Her demeanour was not that of someone who had received a threat either directly or indirectly. That does not make her a liar. But it is something to be taken into account. Incidentally in dealing with the threat, she refers to protection from Bakr and Bakr’s boys coming to shoot up whoever was doing the threatening. Protection. Exactly the same word used by Bakr in the police interview. I dealt with that already. Then remember her evidence that he visited on the 6th of May, the 13th of May, 3rd of June, the 4th of June, the 10th of June, the 11th of June, and the 8th of September — without passes, according to Denoon. All those days without passes. Yet he had a pass on the 9th of June and Mr Denoon’s records show that he attended that day, but no record in her book of any visit on that day.

Another curious factor is the double entry on the 4th. Bakr arriving alone at 10.45, leaving at 11.05, returning five minutes later at 11.10 with his driver. Why make two entries if he only left for five minutes? Why enter the driver on the second occasion and not the first? In addition, the 4th of June was the only day on which we have heard a pass was requested but no record is shown of it having been issued. If a pass had been requested on that day, one would expect in the normal course of events, it would be picked up in the office. If Mr Bakr attended on that day, why on earth did he not go to the pass office to ask for his pass? It really does not make sense. A further and more significant point about his entry, look at the colour of the ink relating to the entry under visitors. Compare it with the other entries on that page. You will have a chance to look at the record book while you deliberate. Were these entries made on the same day as the rest of the entries on that page? Finally, on this point, Petrotrin is a sensitive area. They deal in combustibles and in the salvage plant, there are plainly items which could cause danger of combustion.

Is the security at Petrotrin really so lax that someone could get in without a pass? There is reference to Brigadier Alfonso on the 26th of May discussing passes for the Imam. Is the Brigadier going to allow the accused free entry without a pass? Even the vehicles are checked to ensure that they are in good condition and not a potential fire hazard. They have to have their own pass. Bearing this in mind, is it really so easy to obtain admittance, with a vehicle? Without a pass? If Marchand’s evidence is correct and security is as lax as she claims, heaven help Petrotrin. Sooner or later the whole place will explode. Another matter you must consider is the claim made by the accused to the police of the hours he worked at Petrotrin Breakfast 7 am, take off for Petrotrin, come back 4-5 p.m. Exhausted. Even Miss Marchand says he visited the site on ten days between early May and the day of the arrest, the 21st August. Ten days in nearly four months.

The times — one hour on the 12th of May, just over one hour on the 13th, 3/4 hour on the 26th and 27th, ten minutes on the 3rd of June, a total of one hour on the 4th of June, seven minutes on the 10th of June, 50 minutes on the 11th of June. Hardly a full day’s work. Yet he asserts he is off to Petrotrin after his 7 am breakfast and returns exhausted at 4-5 pm, eight hours or so later. He does not even have to drive himself. Was he telling the truth to the police? Or was he trying to persuade them that that was his normal eight hour working day at Petrotrin, leaving him exhausted at the end of the day? Let me just go back to the important evidence of the two Brents for a moment. Please remember the warnings. Both these witnesses have a purpose of their own to serve. “Big Brent,” because he was an accomplice and has an immunity. “Small Brent,” because he is facing a murder charge.

In addition, it is human nature and normal for accomplices to minimise their own part in a crime. They will also protect people who they should implicate. They are villains. Regrettably, the State when bringing a case of this kind has to rely on these flawed witnesses. Respectable people just do not get involved in plans to kill. So we have to rely on these witnesses. It is your difficult task to examine these witnesses carefully. To analyse their motives, to see how their evidence ties in with other evidence. To examine how if at all they have sought to minimise their own part in the crime. To use your intelligence and knowledge of the world to assess their evidence. That is your task, members of the jury.  The State has no interest in obtaining a false conviction. If you have real doubt of the involvement of the accused in this conspiracy, please acquit him. The State requests that you convict only if you are all sure.

This is not like some other jurisdictions where every effort is made by the prosecution to obtain a conviction for political reasons irrespective of guilt or innocence. That is why I am taking such pains to examine with you all aspects of the evidence. I am certainly not asking you to take my witnesses at face value, or to accept every word they say as true. What I am doing is to ask you to assess them warts and all. To consider at the same time the picture thrown up by the evidence as a whole. Both the prosecution’s and the defence’s evidence. Big Brent says he was not in the car at MovieTowne. There is every reason to believe that he was. It cannot be proved beyond doubt that he was because Salim has retracted his positive identification. But you could never be sure that he was not in that car.

This of itself does not necessarily affect the rest of his testimony although it could. That is a matter for you. You are entitled to believe these witnesses on some aspects of their evidence and disbelieve them on others. You are also entitled to use your intelligence and common sense to draw inferences. Small Brent’s part may have been greater than he and Big Brent say it was. He said he was not a party to the plan, he had just gone along to collect some money.  He said he got it from the Imam, he didn’t bother to ask Buffy. You are entitled to be sceptical about this without necessarily disbelieving the basic thrust of his account. Apart from getting him to repeat the Shahada, another attempt by Mrs Elder to test Small Brent’s evidence may point to where the truth really lay. It was suggested as you remember that he was never in that room in Buffy’s house where the conversation took place.

In order to test this, Mrs Elder asked Small Brent to describe the room. This would have been an impossible exercise if he had not been there. To be asked to describe a room in which an incident has taken place and the intricate details of such an incident which you have wholly fabricated is the stuff of nightmares. Let’s deal with the accused’s relationship with ministers, describing the Prime Minister as a casual friend. He told the police that he had assisted the PNM to win the marginal seats. When I asked him how, he said he simply exercised his vote. I pressed him on this, he went on say that he is an influential member of society. He was further pressed and said ‘we spoke to people during the campaign.’ It was only when he was further pressed he said that he had 200 people out canvassing in these marginal seats. What was the motive? People do not usually arrange this sort of assistance in an election campaign unless there is something in it for them. Yet he told me that the Prime Minister owed him nothing.

Nonsense. If he won the marginal seats for the PNM, the Prime Minister owes him a very great deal.  Whether a political party should put itself in that position in relation to a man like Abu Bakr, it is not for me, a foreigner to say. But this is why Abu Bakr was telling Brent Miller that he was going to see the Prime Minister about his predicament. To call in a favour? That leads me back to where I began. I return to Brent Miller and his relationship with the accused. In particular, the visit to the prison by the accused. The description of himself in the prison records as friend, and his willingness to pay Miller’s attorney. This is, we submit, the key to the whole case. Why? Why? Why was Bakr having anything to do with a man accused of shooting one of his metaphorical children? A serious and violent criminal? Why did he allow such a man to step inside his house? Why was he visiting him in prison? Why was he describing himself as a friend? Why was he paying Miller’s legal expenses? If this shooting had nothing to do with him. It is for you to decide. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.