The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A POLICEMAN presented alleged photographic evidence on a CD of the aftermath of the John Bull Rolex Boutique robbery.

However, his evidence at the Supreme Court yesterday raised concern for the defence attorneys of the alleged robbers Jasper Curry, David Collins and Jonathan Armbrister that prompted Justice Indra Charles to discharge the jury until Thursday.

The three men are accused of robbing the Bay Street store of 12 watches, together valued at $395,360 while armed with a high powered weapon.

During the incident, a masked man allegedly used a hammer to smash open the display cases before taking the luxury watches.

An accomplice was apparently armed with a rifle while a third man had driven the getaway car.

Yesterday, Detective Constable 2290 Bruce Chisholm took the witness stand to tell the jury of his involvement with the investigation of the raid.

Stationed at the Thompson Boulevard Crime Scene office of the police force that Sunday morning, May 22 last year, Mr Chisholm said he had received a tip around 11.40am and proceeded to the John Bull store in Bay Street.

When he got there, he was given additional information by a fellow investigator and he photographed the scene of a raid, dusted for prints and collected a hammer that was allegedly used during the raid.

The policeman told the court he inspected the glass show case where latent marks were found.

However, none were found on the hammer.

He then went to the Andrew Akin photo lab where he said negatives were produced from the images he took.

When Mr Chisholm said that he had also produced a CD, which prosecutor Sandradee Gardiner asked to be admitted into evidence along with the negatives, the defence objected.

Jerone Roberts, representing Armbrister, said that his client did not know whether or not the negatives were an exact replica of the images they were seeing in a photo album that was given to them and the jury.

He also said that it was irresponsible that the officer did not bring any equipment to allow them to see the evidence.

"If this officer knew he was using a CD, he knows procedure, he should've brought a computer with him," he told the court.

He also responded to the prosecutor's submission that this was a normal occurrence, saying: "Frequency doesn't make it right. This is the first time I am seeing this."

When Justice Charles overruled the objection, indicating that she could set time to allow the officer to bring a computer to view the CD, Collins' attorney, Geoffrey Farquharson, asked her: "Is there only one defendant?"

He too objected to having the CD being admitted into evidence, claiming that prosecution did not provide this in the Voluntary Bill of Indictment, in light of the officer's testimony that the CD was produced on the day of the incident.

The judge offered to let the policeman use her laptop to view the CD however Mr Farquharson said: "This is new evidence. We have to see it and mount a defence.

"This is not something where you just see it on a computer and then talk.

"These men are on trial for armed robbery and if convicted, will go to jail for many years.

"They have a right to mount a defence to whatever is on that CD."

The judge first stood the matter down for 30 minutes.

When the trial resumed, another issue arose that prompted a private discussion in the absence of the jury.

When the jury finally returned, she told them to return to court on Thursday.

The trio were remanded into custody.