Parris calls name of prominent doctor, wife
THE name of a prominent businesswoman’s relative was called in the Dr Chandra Naraynsingh murder trial by confessed hit man Shawn Parris yesterday. Continuing his testimony about the events surrounding the June 29 1994 killing of Naraynsingh, Parris admitted in the San Fernando High Court that he did mention, in his first statement to the police, the name of the relative who is a medical doctor in San Fernando. Parris, testifying as the State’s main witness, said that in his statement to the police when he returned from the United States in 2000, he mentioned that the male relative was a doctor. He also testified that in that statement, the doctor was married to the sister of a prominent businesswoman. On trial for the murder of Naraynsingh, which took place 12 years ago, are Seeromani Maraj-Naraynsingh and San Fernando car dealer Elton Ramasir. Accused Maraj-Naraynsingh is the third and current wife of Prof Vijay Naraynsingh. Chandra Naraynsingh was the professor’s second wife. The two accused are before Justice Herbert Volney and a jury panel of 12 members. At Thursday’s hearing, Parris had testified that when he returned to Trinidad in 2000, he wanted to "clear his conscience" of the killing of Naraynsingh. He then dictated a statement to homicide police detectives on June 16, 2000. In that statement, Parris said he told police that Naraynsingh was having an affair with a male relative of the businesswoman. Under cross-examination by Karl Hudson-Phillips yesterday, Parris revealed to the court that he had "suggested" to detectives that Prof Naraynsingh had filed divorce proceedings. On his own admission during his testimony on Thursday, Parris testified how he pumped five bullets from a .38 revolver into Naraynsingh. He did so as she entered the car in the carpark of her workplace — the Langmore Health Foundation. Parris also testified that after he was sentenced by the High Court to serve life imprisonment without parole before 30 years for the killing, he wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson and Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime and Intelligence) James Philbert. Parris said that the purpose of his letters was to seek a deal with the State to get a reduction in his sentence. Yesterday, under cross-examination by Queen’s Counsel Karl Hudson-Phillips, Parris told Volney and the jury that he never got the deal. Hudson-Phillips is defending Seeromani while Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj is representing Ramasir. Parris said he was tricked by his attorneys into pleading guilty to manslaughter — the lesser count of murder — as offered by the DPP in October 2003. Parris, in answer to Hudson-Phillips, said: "Based on information from my attorney, I went in that direction." Hudson-Phillips asked, "Did your attorney trick you?" to which Parris answered, "not at that point in time. After, I considered it to be a trick." In answer to further questions from Hudson-Phillips, Parris told the court that he thought he had a "good case to fight." He said he was expecting to be sentenced to serve between seven to ten years in prison for the manslaughter guilty plea in the Naraynsingh killing. Parris’ sentence was confirmed by the Court of Appeal last year. Yesterday, Parris told the court that he has since filed an appeal in the Privy Council. Parris said he appealed his conviction and sentence because his attorney, "did not do what he was supposed to do." "So you want to jump out clean out of this thing?" Hudson-Phillips asked Parris. Parris replied, "Which person who committed a criminal act would not like to come out clean?" Parris then admitted to the Queen’s Counsel that the Naraynsingh killing was "bad." Asked if he began to plot after his High Court prison sentence, Parris said: "It is already bad that I shot and killed Naraynsingh. Then to come here before this court and lie about it sir; I am not going to do that sir." Parris said that in March 2004 — one month after his sentence on February 12, 2004 — he wrote to the DPP and Philbert. Parris agreed with Hudson-Phillips that he had received a letter from the DPP six months later, and was then visited in prison by homicide police detectives. The defence yesterday took issue with a "mystery" statement which Parris claimed he gave to police, but which Special Prosecutor Dana Seetahal said the State is not in possession. Parris claimed he dictated that statement to homicide officer Wayne Dick on June 17, 2000 — two days after he returned to Trinidad. Hudson-Phillips told trial judge Herbert Volney — "We have a situation here where this witness has said that there is a statement in which he did not know my client’s name. This witness is attempting to explain why he didn’t call my client’s name in a statement which the prosecution doesn’t have or can’t find, or doesn’t exist. And I am getting tired of this artificiality of this matter." Seetahal said she maintained the position she held on Thursday — that the prosecution did not have that statement of which Parris spoke. "We told them there was none," Seetahal said. After a brief adjournment of the hearing, Hudson-Phillips told the court that the prosecution had presented him with a statement from Sgt Dick dated January 3, 2005. That statement was certified by the police complainant Assistant Superintendent of Police, Nadir Khan, Hudson-Phillips added. The trial continues on Monday when Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC will cross-examine Parris.
Comments
"Parris calls name of prominent doctor, wife"