State closes case in Excellent Stores fire

The State closed its case yesterday against Peter Mc Donald, who is charged with arson in the  Excellent Stores City Centre fire three years ago, after legal arguments by Mc Donald’s attorney Ulric Skerritt and counter arguments by senior State prosecutor Wayne Rajbansie. The judge will rule on these submissions today. Mc Donald is before Justice Melville Baird in the Port-of-Spain First Assizes, charged with willfully setting fire to Excellent Stores City Centre on July 31, 2001. Mc Donald was allegedly seen setting the fire by store employee Oswald Roberts, and later pointed out to store security guard Christopher Parris. In closing the State’s case, Rajbansie told the court he would not be calling Insp Rodriguez, who had laid the charge against Mc Donald. Rodriguez is out of the country. The State’s last witness was Senior Supt Farouk Ghany, who was thoroughly cross-examined by  Skerritt yesterday.

In response to Skerritt’s questions, Ghany said he had been a police officer for the past 38 years, most of which were spent in the CID. He accepted that he would consider himself an experienced police officer, and that he was the most senior officer that took part in the arson inquiry. He told Skerritt he had no reason to question any other employee of the store (except Roberts). Ghany said Mc Donald never told him he did not take part in the arson. Also, he did not place the accused on an identification parade. About 30 to 40 minutes after the start of the fire, Roberts went outside the store on Chacon Street where he pointed out Mc Donald to Parris as the person whom he saw setting the fire in the store. Mc Donald was then arrested by Parris.

Ghany said he had seized Mc Donald’s clothes with the intention of having them tested at the Forensic Science Centre, but after having a conversation with the senior scientific officer, the clothes were not submitted for examination. In response to more questions, Ghany said he did not cause the fire department to investigate the matter. He could not say if it was normal procedure for the fire department to investigate arson fires. He also could not say what caused the fire, but suggested that the forensic expert would be able to say. He explained that he was not the lead investigator in the matter and could not say if a forensic expert had visited the scene of the fire. The State’s case is that Mc Donald had poured liquid he had in a bottle on the floor of the store. He then lit a newspaper and threw it on the floor with the liquid.