IT was around 8 pm on December 30, 1999, when Asia Watson and her daughter were on their way to a nearby parlour on Eccles Road, Gran Lagoon, that she heard two loud explosions, following which two men ran past her and entered a red car. The two men were not recognisable since they were wearing handkerchiefs over their faces. There was a blue car parked in the yard of the house from which they ran. She however, did not call or go to the police that night.
This is what the judge and jury in the San Fernando First Assize Court heard yesterday as Watson’s deposition from the preliminary inquiry was read in court. The deposition was read after lead prosecuting counsel, Sir Timothy Cassel QC made an application for it to be read under the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Inquiry) Act. Via a medical report the court learned that Watson was unable to travel to court. It was agreed between both Prosecution and the Defence that her deposition be read. It then became a court exhibit. Yesterday, the third day’s hearing of Dhanraj Singh’s murder trial, six more witnesses testified for the prosecution. So far, 13 witnesses have been called.
In contrast to Tuesday’s hearing when the jury was put out of court a few times, only once did this happen yesterday; and they were out for only about three minutes. When hearing resumed yesterday the first witness, Kirk Jackson was called to the witness stand. He told the court he was a police constable currently on vacation. He recalled Friday, December 31, 1999. On that day he was attached to the Mayaro Police Station when around 3.20 pm he saw informant Visham Sumairsingh of Tabaquite Road, Mayaro, who had come to the station to make a report. Examined by prosecuting attorney Dave Rampersad, Jackson said because of what Visham told him he, (Jackson) and other police officers left on inquiries.
Jackson said his inquries took him to Eccles Road, Gran Lagoon Village, Mayaro, to a beach house, which was situated along Eccles Road. On arrival there he observed that the house was a wooden and concrete structure with upstairs and downstairs apartments. Jackson told the court he observed on the western side of that structure, a Mazda 929 vehicle, blue in colour. The front doors of the vehicle were open; he then proceeded towards the house, where he observed two doors on the western side of the building. One door was open. He proceeded through that open door which led him into the kitchen of the downstairs apartment where he observed a refrigerator and a pair of spectacles on the floor in the kitchen.
Jackson said he then proceeded to the living room area of the downstairs apartment where he observed the motionless body of an East Indian person in a seated position; his back was against the wall on the western side of that downstairs apartment. Witness said he recognised the motionless person to be Hansraj Sumairsingh, also called Hansie, whom he had known for about 20 to 25 years prior to that date. Jackson said he further observed that blood was coming from the right shoulder of the person, and on the floor between the legs of that motionless person. Jackson told the court “I immediately secured the scene. Sometime later that day I contacted Sgt George at the Homicide Bureau. George arrived later that evening; I had a conversation with him and I handed over the scene to him,” he added.
The witness was cross-examined by defence counsel, Prakash Ramadhar.
RAMADHAR; I take it from what you said, you were the first police officer on the scene?
JACKSON: Yes.
RAMADHAR: How many years now have you been a police officer from that day — Approximately 17 years.
RAMADHAR; Tell me, if you agree or not; the last person with the deceased, if identified, would be critically important. Do you understand? — No.
From what you said, a body was found at the house — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Whoever that person was, it could be his killers.
Prosecuting attorney Rampersad objected to the last part of the question, but since the word ‘could’ was used, Judge Melville Baird allowed counsel to proceed.
RAMADHAR: As a police officer, the person last seen with the deceased would be important — Yes sir.
Further cross-examined Jackson said there were neighbours on the left and right of the house across the road.
RAMADHAR: Did you consider it a murder scene when you got there? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: And you appreciate that what you were doing was a matter of great significance, as a police officer. — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Did you or any other police officers in your presence interview the neighbours? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Give me their names.
JACKSON: They were the Garcias. Those were the only neighbour I interviewed.
RAMADHAR: You took notes of your interview; where are they? — I took a mental note.
RAMADHAR: You took no written notes at a murder scene? — I said I interviewed only the Garcias. I took no written notes of my interview with the Garcias.
Witness also said that having left the station that day after having received a most serious report he walked with a piece of paper.
RAMADHAR: You did not ascertain who was the last person seen with the deceased? — No.
RAMADHAR: Did you ascertain from investigations, from neighbours who was with the deceased when last seen alive? – No, I did not.
RAMADHAR: You handed over the investigations to Sgt George? — Yes; after that I left it with him.
RAMADHAR: You called that George, and that was the end as far as you were concerned? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: So Mr George took over. — Yes.
RAMADHAR: At about what time ? — That was about half past six. Witness said he left about 7 pm after George took over the investigations.
Witness said when George came there were three other officers with him. Asked to identify them the witness gave names as PC Sankar, Ramkeesoon, and PC Mohan. Further cross-examined Jackson said when he got to the scene the radio in the car was on. There was a radio near to the entrance of the kitchen. Shown a photograph of the area, counsel asked Jackson if it did reflect the actual scene when he got there. Witness replied: Yes, it did. In response to questions from Ramadhar, Jackson, via a photograph, cited a door with a padlock on it, as well as a piece of pipe. Witness said he did not search the apartment. Having got to the scene he was very cautious to observe if there were any footprints, or so. Witness said he was very observant to ascertain the point of entry into the building. The only point of entry he observed then was through the kitchen door. He said it was the only entrance he saw. Witness said at the time he hed been attached to the Mayaro station for approximately two years.
RAMADHAR: Were you aware that there were allegations made of thieving by the URP from the Mayaro Regional Corporation?
Jackson; No, I was not aware.
RAMADHAR: That materials were being stolen for the building of a beach house? – No, I am not aware.
Witness also told the court he knew of one Razack who was then a Member of Parliament. He also knew Lancelot Ottley. But he did not know Ottley as a manager in the URP. He knew him in another capacity as a taxi driver. He did not know Ottley in any other capacity.
RAMADHAR: Do you know whether he was a Muslim?
JACKSON: I cannot answer that.
Witness said he knew Inspector Lancaster. The ninth witness called was Police Supt Dawson Victor of the Homicide Bureau in San Fernando. He recalled Friday, January 7, 2000 when he obtained a search warrant to search the home of the accused, Dhanraj Singh. He said around 3.50 pm that day, accompanied by other officers he went to Dyo Village, Williamsville where the accused lived. The accused was not at home. Witness said he spoke to one Estate Constable Jogie who was on duty on the premises, and Jogie told him something. Victor said around 5 pm that same day, Leela Singh in company with one Keith Singh arrived at the premises. He spoke to Leela who said she was the wife of the accused. Victor said he proceeded to execute the warrant in her presence. He read the warrant to her, and during the search he found in the bedroom of the house a .9mm magazine in a firearm case. “That was all I found at the house,” witness declared. He said he continued the search but found nothing else. Witness said he was aware that the accused Dhanraj Singh was a licensed firearm holder. In fact the .9mm magazine was pertinent to the .9mm firearm for which he had a licence.
The witness was shown the warrant which he executed at Dhanraj’s home. He identified it. Cross-examined by defence counsel, Prakash Ramadhar, witness said 9mm guns were very popular in Trinidad and Tobago. As a result, there were a lot of police seizures of such firearms. The firearms, he admitted, were also very popular in the underworld. Ramadhar also enquired of the witness if he knew about the Forensic Science Centre for the examination of ammunition.
RAMADHAR: And from your experience we have the technology to determine which firearm a bullet came from? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Having found the 9 mm magazine did you make any further inquiries where the firearm was ?
VICTOR: I understand it was seized.
RAMADHAR: My instructions are that it was actually handed over since June, 1997. In fact, in 1999 the accused’s 9mm firearm was in police custody? — Yes sir.
The next witness, Martin Ramkeesoon, (No. 10), also known as Mervyn Ramkeesoon, an operator at the National Gas company (NGC), told the court he did fishing and had a boat. Witness was shown a photograph in which he identified some fishing vessels. He recognised the area being Ortoire Village. Witness recalled January 4, 2000 when he was at Plaisance Beach doing some repairs to his boat. While there a friend came and met him. They were there for quite a while. He had a conversation with the friend who had with him a black Motorola Startac cellphone. (Witness was shown a photograph of the phone). His friend, he said, handed him the cellphone and he Ramkeesoon took it home where it was charged. About an hour later he returned home and noticed the cellphone was fully charged. Witness said he then called the number — 645-3138 — a man called Franklin Ryan who was now deceased. Witness said he did not get through to Ryan.
Ramkeesoon said he returned to the beach the next day when he called someone at TSTT in respect of the cellphone. He gave the person the number of the cellphone. That persons he said called him back. He subsequently returned the cellphone to Terry Chaital. The next witness (No 11) was called and examined by Timothy Cassel was Police Inspector Selwyn Lancaster, who said he was attached to the Sangre Grande Police Station. At this stage the jury was put out of court due to a small legal argument. However they were back in court after three minutes. Questioned by Cassel, Inspector Lancaster recalled a day in December, 1999 when he went to the Mayaro Regional Corporation office. He remembered the date was Wednesday, December 8, 1999. It was approximately 2.15 pm when he spoke to the late Hansraj Sumairsingh. Witness told the court “he (Sumairsingh) reported to me that he had been threatened,” and indicatred his concern about the threat.
Cross-examined by Ramadhar, Lancaster said he was the inspector in charge of the Rio Claro Police Station. He got to his office on December 8 shortly before 2.15 pm. Witness said he was not called; no one fetched him, but he had cause to be there on a matter completely unconnected to the office.
RAMADHAR: As a diligent police officer you made a note of your interview in your diary. — Interview ?
RAMADHAR: You made an official note in your pocket diary? — No, I did not make any note in the police station diary.
RAMADHAR; When did you come to give a statement in connection with this matter?
LANCASTER: Sometime in 2000.
RAMADHAR: I’ll help you; there are 12 months in the year. Was it in the first half or the latter six months?
LANCASTER: It was sometime after June; I cannot say exactly.
RAMADHAR: You are giving evidence in a very serious matter, officer. — Yes.
RAMADHAR: You provided a statement to the investigators in this matter ? — Yes, I provided a statement. I did not consider it to be important.
RAMADHAR: A statement in connection with threats received by a person? – I would not say so.
RAMADHAR: Was it not important? — It was important, but not that important.
RAMADHAR: As an experienced police officer did it not occur to you that you might be a witness in the case? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: You, as the most senior officer in the station did not think that a man reported to you he was threatened, and now you say that was not important? — No sir.
Continuing under cross-examination witness recalled that in January, 2001, he did not prepare a statement.
RAMADHAR: Can I help you, and you can tell me if I’m wrong. Do you deny that on November 20, 2000 — I would not deny it.
RAMADHAR: It was on November 20, 2000 at Mayaro station, is it the first time you signed the statement. I’m putting it to you that was the date you signed it.
LANCASTER: I would not deny that.
RAMADHAR: When you signed this statement was anyone present with you ? — No sir. After I signed the statement I handed it to Inspector George.
RAMADHAR: That is a very formal act? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Did you volunteer that statement to him? — Yes, I did volunteer the statement to him, the investigator.
RAMADHAR: Now in November 20, 2000, and you decided you are going to produce a statement? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: But somebody asked you for one, yes or no.
LANCASTER: Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Who? — Inspector George.
RAMADHAR: And how long he asked you to prepare this statement? — Approximately three months afterwards.
RAMADHAR: Here was a request from an investigator into a murder, and you took approximately three months to draw up your statement and sign it? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Having written it up and signed it, how long did you keep it before handing it over? — Approximately two weeks. I handed it over to him at the Mayaro Police Station.
Witness also told the court he gave evidence in the magistrates’ court. He could not remember the date on which he gave evidence.
RAMADHAR: May I suggest very humbly to you that would have been around April, 2002?
LANCASTER: Sometime around there.
RAMADHAR: How long before you gave evidence in the magistrates’ court that you were cited as a witness? _ I do not know about that.
RAMADHAR: Did you receive a summons to attend court? — It was around two to three months afterwards.
Further cross-examined witness said he was at the Mayaro Police Station during the period of the charge against Elliott Hypolite.
RAMADHAR: And you had to interact with Hypolite and other police officers in that inquiry; is that not correct? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: It is also true that Hypolite would from time to time, be kept at the Mayaro Police Station? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: There was a particular evening when Hypolite was in conference with police officers about evidence he would be required to give? — That would not be correct.
RAMADHAR: Did you see Hypolite in conference with officers at the Mayaro station? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Almost immediately before his prosecution was terminated; is that not correct? — I would say it was terminated some time before.
RAMADHAR: Do you recall the names of those officers? — I cannot remember the names of those officers. He was not under my jurisdiction at that time.
Witness said he was in charge of the station, and ultimately the security in the station would be under his charge.
Witness said he knew the officers who were in conference with Hypolite, and named two of them as Inspector George and Cpl Phillip. He said he could not remember the names of the others who were there. He knew them by their faces, not by name.
RAMADHAR: Mr Sumairsingh was your liming partner? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: Was he a personal friend of yours? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: And oh, by the way you knew a person by the name of Ottley? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: You are a man very familiar with what is going on in Mayaro — allegations of crimne and so on ? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: There were allegations of crime and misappropriation of materials. In fact serious allegations involving a beach house being built with government materials? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Mr Lancaster, Mr Sumairsingh not being your liming partner or personal friend, but you did have dealings with him? — Yes I had dealings with him as the chairman, and I as the police officer in charge. Corporation matters like vendors on the street, and thing.RAMADHAR: Was there an occasion where the deceased Sumairsingh…….oh, do you know what padding a bill is? — Yes.
What do you understand padding a bill to be? — Putting more to the bill.
RAMADHAR: Illegally? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: Dishonestly? I would not say dishonestly, but illegal.
RAMADHAR: In fact you can be described as a thief.
— I would not say a thief, but a smartman.
JUDGE: Which is which? — I find the word thief is a bit harsh.
JUDGE: Well, let’s leave the appellation smartman aside.
RAMADHAR: Do you know in Trinidad we have a term about ‘take in front before in front take you’? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Explain what you understand that to mean. — When you have done something before anyone else finds out.
RAMADHAR: You mean if a person is making an allegation about you to your boss, you jump in front and tell your boss something first? — All that can happen.
RAMADHAR: Did you at any time contemplate padding of a bill for the repair of a police vehicle for the Corporation, from $1,400 to $24,000? Did that enter your mind at all? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: To be fair to you, it did not come from you? — No sir.
JUDGE: I’m wondering whether hearsay is not coming in here.
RAMADHAR: But it entered your mind, the padding of that bill from $1,400 to $24,000. — It never entered my mind; it was suggested.
RAMADHAR: Where? At the Corporation.
Cassel intervened with an objection which he found bordered on hearsay evidence.
The issue of hearsay was however subsequently discarded.
The judge having explained to Counsel that the witness had said the issue never entered his mind; it was suggested. The morning break came shortly afterwards.
On the resumption 15 minutes later, Ramadhar continued his cross-examination.
RAMADHAR: It was while you were at Mr Sumairsingh’s office when you received the report? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Did you make any inquiry into the report? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: From the person who had made the report to you, did you question him about it? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: So you did not note the nature of the report? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Did you know the details of the report? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: You are clue-less then as to the details of the report ? — I would say so, to a point.
RAMADHAR: You had received a report of threats? — Yes.
RAMADHAR: As a police officer would you not be interested in finding out the nature of the threat? — Yes sir.
RAMADHAR: Did you enquire what these threats were? — Some of it.
RAMADHAR: Some of it? — I did not get a full and truthful response to the threats.
RAMADHAR: Did you, in any way, persist for a full and truthful response? — No sir.
RAMADHAR: So how did you know there were other parts you were not told? — From a conversation.
The 12th witness — Dr Hughvon des Vignes — was next on the witness stand. He told of his examination of Sumairsingh’s body on January 3, 2000, when he performed a post mortem on the adult male, who was identified to him as Hansraj Sumairsingh. The identification was made by Visham Singh.Sumairsingh’s body he said was about 45 years old; he was of medium stature – 70inches in length, and weighed 88 kgs, or 194 pounds. The body was clothed in a white T-shirt and purple shorts. It was in a fair state of preservation. He also spoke of the condition in which he found the body. Dr des Vignes noted there were injuries to the body, and two punctured wounds caused by gunshots — one on the outside of the upper right arm; the other was on the outside of the right thigh, a few inches below the hip. Both bullets were recovered from the body. Internal examination he added, did not reveal any abnormalities of the brain; the lungs were congested. At the post mortem, the two bullets recovered from the body were given to Sgt George. He also took a sample of blood from the body and handed that too to Sgt George with some instructions.
Asked about the estimated time of death Dr des Vignes said he estimated the time to be between 18 to 30 hours from the time the body was adequately refrigerated. “And on that basis,” he declared, “the changes of decomposition demonstrated that the body would have been of the order of a day or 24 hours since then — assuming that the body is refrigerated within six hours of its discovery, then death would have occurred between 18 to 30 hours. Witness said the deceased died from gunshot wounds. He estimated that Sumairsingh died within an hour, and for the most, two hours of receiving those injuries. In answer to prosecuting counsel, Rampersaid, Dr des Vignes said “he could have died very quickly, but that is not the same as instantaneously, but he could have died within a few minutes.
Defence Counsel reserved cross-examination of Dr des Vignes. Witness Randolph Samuel of Gran Lagoon, Mayaro, a mason with the Ministry of Works, was the 13th witness called. He also owns a grocery and bar. Witness said he knew Hansraj Sumairsingh. He Sumairsingh had a beach house about 200 feet from his business place. He recalled that shortly before 8 pm on December 31, 1999, Sumairsingh he said drove up to his business place and purchased certain items from his grocery. After that he left for his beach house. That he said, was the last time he saw Sumairsingh alive.
Cross-examined by Ramadhar, witness said he saw Sumairsingh drive his car to his (witness) business place. He purchased some stuff, got into his car and drove towards the beach house about 200 feet away. Witness said he could not remember the items which Sumairsingh bought. Terry Chaitan (witness No. 14) told the court he was a fisherman who owned a boat in Ortoire village. He identified his boat in a photograph shown to him. On December 28, 1999, he recalled working on his boat that day. It was tied up under the Ortoire bridge. He next returned to it on January 3, 2001, and in it he discovered a black Motorola Startac cellphone. He recognised the phone in a photograph shown him. On January 3, he recalled taking the phone to Mervyn Ramkeesoon. He subsequently took the phone to one Randolph James.
Following the cross-examination of Chaitan, lead prosecuting counsel, Cassel then tendered in evidence a medical report on witness No. 15 – Asia Watson. From the report he pointed out to Justice Baird that the woman was not fit to travel. As a result he made an application to have her deposition read in court. The deposition was read by the clerk. The judge then ruled that it becomes an exhibit of the court. The defence said they had no objection. Hearing resumes 9 am today.
