The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN accused of trying to murder another man in a late night cutlass attack, opted to remain silent in his own defence in the Supreme Court.

Instead, 36-year-old Nicole Octelus and defending lawyer Ramona-Farquharson-Seymour, called two witnesses to the stand yesterday when the defence opened its case to the jury.

Octelus, of Godet Avenue, Carmichael Road, faces an attempted murder charge. It is claimed he tried to murder John Lubin on September 29, 2007. Octelus denies the charge.

Prior to the defence opening its case, Justice Vera Watkins addressed the accused and told him that he had the option of remaining silent and relying on the evidence presented during the trial, as he had nothing to prove, or he could testify under oath and be subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution.

Octelus chose the first option and afterwards, his attorney, Mrs Seymour told the judge that the defence was ready to proceed with its two witnesses.

Deborah Wells of Godet Avenue took the stand and told the court that on the day in question, she was at work at Yardee’s take-away that is run by her boss named “Alton.”

“I went to work for six to ten,” she said, adding that “I work nights and I have to open us.”

“Was there anyone there with you at Yardee’s,” the attorney asked.

“Some people from around the neighbourhood,” she replied.

“Do you know a Nicole Octelus?” the attorney asked.

“I know him for many years,” the woman said.

“Was he there at Yardees that night?” Mrs Seymour asked.

“He was there. He came there around eight,” the witness answered.

“How do you know he came around that time?” the attorney asked. Ms Wells said a friend of hers had just come in from abroad around that time and the friend and Octelus were “chilling there.”

“He [Octelus] was there until I knocked off,” she added.

“When did you knock off?” the attorney asked. “At 10,” she said.

Ms Wells also said that her friend (Shelly Dean) and Octelus walked her home that night after work.

“What time you arrived home?” the attorney asked.

“I closed up about 10. I think it was after 11,” the witness answered.

Mrs Seymour asked the witness if she saw the man in court who escorted her home that night with her friend. Ms Wells said she could.

“Can you point him out?” the attorney asked.

“He’s right behind you in the white t-shirt,” Ms Wells said, pointing at Octelus who sat in the prisoner’s dock.

“Ms Wells, did you come here today to lie to the court?” the attorney asked.

“No, ma’am” the witness answered.

“Were you ever questioned by the police in reference to this matter?” Mrs Seymour wanted to know. Ms Wells said, “No.”

In cross-examination, prosecutor Anthony Delaney asked the witness about the shortcut to her house from Yardee’s in terms of the time it took to get home.

“I can’t really say,” she answered.

“Can you give an approximation? Five minutes, 10 minutes, 15, 20 minutes maybe?” the prosecutor asked.

“I don’t know, maybe about 20 minutes,” Ms Wells answered.

“Who were walking with you?” Mr Delaney asked.

“Ms Shelly Dean,” the defence witness replied.

“I suggest to you Ms Shelly Dean was not walking with you,” the prosecutor said.

“Yes she was,” Ms Wells replied.

“In fairness to you, you did say another person was walking with you?” the prosecutor asked.

“Nicole Octelus,” the witness answered.

The prosecutor asked if Octelus accompanied her inside her home when they arrived to her house. He did not go in she said.

“So after he took you home, he went with your friend?” asked the prosecutor.

“Yes,” Ms Wells answered, although she next said she did not know where he went.

“How often does he (Octelus) walk you home?” he asked.

She said he doesn’t always walk her home, but Mr Delaney wanted a direct answer to his question.

“Does he walk you home once a week?” the prosecutor pressed.

“Yeah he does,” the witness answered.

“I suggest to you he (Octelus) is a very dear friend of yours,” Mr Delaney said. She said they were “cool” and “close friends.”

“Close enough to lie for him?” he wanted to know.

“No, sir,” she said, shaking her head in disagreement. “I don’t practice that.”

“Do you know a John Lubin?” the prosecutor asked.

“I always see him around,” she answered.

“Did you see him that night?” the prosecutor asked.

“At Yardees? Mmmm I didn’t see him,” the court was told.

“Are you friends with John Lubin?” Mr Delaney asked her.

“No, not after he tried to jook up my son,” the witness said.

“So you’re here today to take action for your son?” the prosecutor asked. No, she said, adding that she does not “fight fire with fire.”

“I leave that to the Lord,” she added.

“After Nicole walked you home and left, did you know where he went?” Mr Delaney asked her. No, she said.

In re-examination, Mrs Seymour asked Ms Wells about the alleged incident between Lubin and her son.

“It happened a long time ago,” she said, adding that she could not remember when it happened other than it was long before the case in question.

“Did you report it to the police?” the attorney asked.

“No. I just left it alone. I didn’t do anything,” the court was told.

“Are you here to get revenge on John Lubin?” Mrs Seymour asked the witness.

“No, ma’am,” Ms Wells answered.

The trial resumes today at 10am with the testimony of Smith Charitable.