The Tribune

A MAN testified that he saw three men stomping and shooting an officer on the ground outside Club Rock.

The man, whose name is being withheld for his protection, said on the early morning of March 29, 1999, clubgoers ran when shots were fired as the men he saw exiting the nightclub issued a threat before opening fire at a policeman and two other men.

He said the men ran down the officer and stomped on him and fired the guns. After giving a statement to police, he attended an identification parade a day later where he was asked by police to identify the men responsible for the shooting.

The witness said he pointed out three suspects wearing numbers 10, 2 and 5. When asked if he would be able to recognise the shooters if he saw them again, the witness said the men were sitting in the prisoner’s dock.

Andrew Davis, (no 10) Clint Evans (no 2) and Stephen Stubbs (no 5) each face a charge of murder and attempted murder in connection with the March 29, 1999, shooting death of Constable Ambrose.

Evans is separately charged with two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to put another in fear.

It is claimed that the three accused, on the day in question, murdered Constable Jimmy Ambrose and attempted to kill Constable Marcian Scott.

It is also alleged that Evans possessed a firearm with intent to put Constables Frank Burrows and Calvin Robinson in fear for their lives.

All three men denied the charges and pleaded not guilty when formally arraigned at the opening of the trial.

Stubbs is represented by Murrio Ducille and Jerone Roberts while Davis and Evans are represented by Ian Cargill and Romona Farquharson-Seymour respectively.

During cross-examination, Mr Ducille suggested to the prosecution witness that in his statement to police, he never mentioned identifying no 5 (Stubbs). “Yes sir, I did,” the witness replied.

Mr Ducille then suggested to the man that he identified “only one person on that parade”. The witness disagreed, maintaining that he identified three persons.

When his evidence before another Supreme Court was put to him contradicting this, the witness still maintained that he picked out suspect no 5 and not no 35.

When his police statement was put to him, the witness admitted that no mention of suspect no 5 was made.

The attorney also suggested to the witness that he had trouble with his sight when the incident occurred.

But the witness said his cataracts were repaired months prior to the incident.

“So you were recovering?” the attorney asked. “I was recovered,” the man said.

Mr Ducille put it to the witness he was not being truthful, but the witness disagreed.

The witness was the cross-examined by Mr Cargill, who suggested that the eye operation in question transpired after 1999, when he was in Her Majesty’s Prison. The witness disagreed and maintained that it was before.

He then denied that he told Davis in prison that police instructed him to point to Davis.

While the witness agreed that he was in prison for a criminal offence, he denied that his rape case was discharged in exchange for his testimony in this case.

Mr Cargill asked the witness to explain how no 35 appeared in his statement.

“I don’t know how 35 got in there,” the witness said.

“Why’d you sign a statement you didn’t read?” the attorney asked.

The witness said he expected the officer taking his statement to be truthful.

The witness was questioned last by Mrs Farquharson-Seymour, who asked him what he was doing outside for the two hours prior to the shooting, which he said occurred around 1.30am.

“I was outside but not in one place, walking around and talking to friends,” he said.

When asked how many men he saw coming from the door of the club, the witness said he could not say as a number of persons were going in and out.

“Didn’t you say earlier you saw four men firing?” the attorney asked. The witness said: “Yes.”

The attorney suggested it was three men who came to the door of the club, but the witness said no.

Farquharson-Seymour put it to the witness that in his statement to police, he said he saw only one of the men running towards the police and pulling a gun from his waist. He agreed after looking at his statement.

“You accept that it is different from what you said in this court?” the attorney asked. “It’s the same thing,” the witness said.

The attorney suggested to the witness that he was not being truthful.

The trial resumes today.