The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A CONTRACTOR, accused of possessing dangerous drugs with intent to supply, told the court that a man in a camouflage outfit, who he could not identify, tried to get inside his rental car while he, his daughter, former girlfriend, and another man were in traffic on Bernard Road.

JFK Construction head 43-year-old Carlos Lamm said this happened on the morning of March 9, 2009 while he was turning around to find an alternate route to his destination to avoid the “heavy” traffic.

Lamm, of Grace Terrace, and his former girlfriend, Laticha McKenzie, are standing trial charged with possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply on March 9, 2009.

It is claimed the pair, on the day in question, were in possession of three and a half pounds of marijuana.

Yesterday afternoon, Lamm gave his side of the story surrounding his arrest in March 2009 beginning from the time he left his home in the morning, to turning himself in to the Drug Enforcement Unit where he was interviewed by police and subsequently arrested.

Lamm’s attorney, Jiaram Mangra, opened the examination.

“Can you today, give an account of what happened on March 9, 2009 as far you as know?” the attorney asked.

“I was preparing to take my girlfriend and daughter to school and my girlfriend to work,” Lamm said.

“They (girlfriend and daughter) got in the car and I went back inside to get the dry lunch bag and the white plastic bag with the lunchables,” he said.

The contractor told the court that the car rental he had was a right hand drive.

“I was driving the car. It was a car rental that I was using for business and for personal use,” Lamm said.

“Before you continue on, did you use that car to transport any drugs on that particular day?” the lawyer asked.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

Continuing his testimony, the accused said that he saw a guy he knew.

“Ted Mackey, he asked me if I could give him a ride to Robinson Road,” Lamm said, adding that Mackey at the time was wearing a hooded jacks and pants because that morning was particularly cold.

Lamm said he agreed and Mackey got in the car seated behind him while his girlfriend was to his left and his daughter behind her.

He drove down Bernard Road heading west until coming upon heavy traffic passing the corner entrance to St Augustine’s College.

“When I drove around the curve, I saw the traffic was a little heavy so I turned around. I saw a guy with bushy face and in camouflage. As I made the turn, he ran around the car and was moving like he was trying to do something,” Lamm said.,

Mr Mangra asked his client what he meant and Lamm said he likened the man’s actions to a robbery.

He came to this conclusion because he did have nearly $300 on his person, he said.

“I saw him jump in a jeep. I didn’t really take notice of it. I think it was a blue jeep,” Lamm said.

Driving away and continuing to his destination, Lamm said he checked his rear view mirror and noticed the jeep was still behind him, even as he made a turn up the hill and went around the monastery.

Lamm said he made his way back to Bernard Road and eventually parked in an open yard where he knew a lot of people, and which was frequented by friends of his. He thought it would ward off a possible robbery.

He got out of the car and told his girlfriend to call for help while he ran through a side corner to a friend’s house through bushes.

Mr Mangra asked Lamm if he had any contact with his girlfriend since the incident. He said no.

Lamm said he went to DEU with Ted Mackey, whom he found, that afternoon.

“What happened there?” the attorney asked.

“They booked us in. They sat me down for about an hour,” Lamm said.

Lamm said they showed him six packets of drugs. He denied all knowledge of them.

He asked for his lawyer to be present before continuing the interview.

“Were you informed of your right to an attorney at the beginning of the interview?” the attorney asked.

Lamm said he was, adding that the interview resumed hours later, but he did not sign the interview because he did not agree with the information being put to him by the officers.

“You recall the evidence of officer Greenslade saying you denied being in the car?” Mr Mangra asked.

“Thar’s false. I was in the car.”

“After the interview, did anything else happen?” the attorney asked.

“They told me they let my sacrifice go” he said, adding that he did not understand what the officers meant by it.

“You recall officer Pennerman saying there was a strong aroma in the car, in reference to drugs. Was this so?” the attorney asked.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered. He said that no one in the car was smoking and that no drugs were in the car.

“He also said he was wearing DEU uniform and that the police vehicle was marked. Is that so?” the attorney asked.

“No, sir,” the accused answered.

“Did you have any drugs in the car?” the attorney asked.

“No sir” Lamm answered.

“Did you see any drugs in the car?” Mr Mangra asked. “No,” said Lamm.

In cross-examination, ASP Ercel Dorsett asked the accused if his girlfriend gave him a white plastic bag.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

“You had a cellphone on you that day?” the prosecutor asked.

“No, sir,” the accused answered.

“You’re a businessman, aren’t you?” the prosecutor asked. Lamm said yes.

“But you didn’t have a cell phone on you?” the prosecutor inquired.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

Referring to the interview at DEU, the prosecutor suggested to the accused that when officer Greenslade put it to him that he was the driver of the rental car on the day in question, he did not answer the question.

“I was in the car,” Lamm answered.

‘You went up the monastery hill. Did you see any school children or persons on the way?” the prosecutor asked.

“Yes,” said Lamm.

“If you thought that someone was trying to rob or come after you, why didn’t you go to where the school was where hundreds, if not thousands of people were, and alert them to what was happening?” the prosecutor asked.

“I wanted to go back to Bernard Road,” Lamm answered.

“You didn’t think to do so because you were aware that it was a DEU officer,” the prosecutor suggested.

“No, sir,” the accused answered. “And knowing you had drugs in the car, you sped off,” the prosecutor suggested.

Lamm denied the suggestion. He also denied the prosecutor’s next suggestion, which was that he threw drugs out of the car.

“I suggest when you ran out of the car, it was still rolling and in motion,” the prosecutor said.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

Regarding Lamm’s claim that there was a third passenger in the car, the prosecutor suggested that “there was no Ted Mackey in your vehicle.”

“Yes, sir,” Lamm answered.

“Only three persons, you, your girlfriend and you daughter,” the prosecutor suggested.

“And Ted Mackey. It was four of us,” Lamm answered.

The prosecutor again suggested that Lamm knew about the drugs and tossed them out of the car while being pursued by police.

“I don’t know anything about any drugs,” Lamm insisted.

The prosecutor then asked Lamm why he ran and left his girlfriend and daughter behind.

“I was thinking they were after me ‘cause I’m always targeted all the time,” Lamm answered.

“So if someone was after you, you don’t think they would come after your girlfriend or baby?”

Lamm said he was concerned about them as well, but was going to get help.

“What time you went to DEU?” the prosecutor asked. Lamm said he went there at 4pm.

“Why so late?” the prosecutor asked.

“I wasn’t going without Ted Mackey,” Lamm answered.

“You went looking for Ted Mackey, to use him?” the prosecutor asked.

“Use him to do what?” Lamm retorted.

“Where did you find Ted Mackey?” the prosecutor asked. Lamm said he found him in Highbury Park because Mackey lived in that area.

“You know him as a jonser?” the prosecutor asked.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

“You know him to do drugs?” the prosecutor asked further.

“No, sir,” the accused answered.

“I suggest the drugs exhibited in this court are the drugs you threw from the car that morning,” the prosecutor said.

“No, sir,” Lamm repeated.

“And they are the drugs you intended to sell,” the prosecutor suggested.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

“And you knew the men behind you were police,” the prosecutor concluded.

“No, sir,” Lamm answered.

The defence closed its case, which was adjourned to December 17 at noon when closing addresses will be made before Deputy Chief Magistrate Carolita Bethell.