The Tribune

A POLICEMAN who claimed he, like his colleague, saw Stephen Stubbs with what was believed to be a black firearm outside Club Rock, said he had “no reason to conspire” against the defendants in the high-profile murder case.

The suggestion of conspiracy between officers to “concoct” evidence in order to convict Stubbs, Andrew Davis and Clint Evans was put to Constable Antoine Duncombe by defending attorney Ian Cargill yesterday.

“I suggest you are apart of a conspiracy with other officers to convict my client, Andrew Davis, Stephen Stubbs and the other co-accused” Mr Cargill said.

“That didn’t happen,” the Constable of 18-years said. “We have no reason to conspire against your client.”

Mr Cargill represents Davis while Stubbs and Evans are represented by Murrio Ducille and Romona Faruqharson-Seymour respectively.

Stubbs, Davis and Evans each face a charge of murder and attempted murder in connection with the March 29, 1999 shooting death of Constable Jimmy 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.

In yesterday’s proceedings, the prosecution called the constable to the witness stand.

Officer Duncombe’s testimony was similar to that of Constable Garrath Ryan on Monday.

He also said that while conducting surveillance at the Cocktails and Dreams Club early on the morning in question, heard what sounded like gunshots before heading to investigate.

On the outside by a chain link fence, he saw Stephen Stubbs putting a suspected firearm under a vehicle before running away, getting into a white Mustang and driving off.

He also said he and his colleague, after collecting the weapon, were approached by a man who gave officer Ryan certain information before they headed towards a crowd of some 50 persons who surrounded officer Ambrose.

At this time, certain information was imparted, which led to the arrest of Davis who was standing in the crowd.

During cross-examination, Mr Cargill asked the officer if he could recall how many persons said that Davis had been one of the shooters.

“Four of five persons”, Duncombe answered.

“Can you give the name of those four or five persons?” the attorney then asked.

“No sir,” the constable replied.

“So you can’t say who those persons were referring to?” Cargill then suggested.

Duncombe maintained that it was Davis who was being referred to.

“Im suggesting you could only assume that the persons were referring to Mr Davis,” the attorney said.

Officer Duncombe agreed.

The officer’s report on the matter was put to him, and he was then asked if the report contained him saying how many identified Davis.

“No sir,” was Duncombe’s response.

Mr Cargill asked the officer if his client, Davis, put up a struggle, was found with anything illegal, resisted arrest or assaulted them during the arrest.

“No sir,” the office answered.

“He was just among the 50 persons?” Cargill asked. The officer said yes.

Asked how much time elapsed between the gunshots and his arrest of Davis, the officer said “Maybe 20 minutes.”

Mr Cargill suggested he never heard anyone make claims against Davis.

Constable Duncombe disagreed.

“You didn’t think it was important to get the names of these persons?” the attorney asked.

“There were other officers,” Duncombe replied.

“I’m asking you,” Cargill replied immediately, and Justice Roy Jones also asked the officer to answer the question.

“Yes it was,” the constable said.

“I’m going to suggest to you that you heard those words in your head. You made it up,” Cargill said.

“No sir,” Constable Duncombe said.

Prior to being questioned by Mr Cargill, Duncombe was cross-examined by Murrio Ducille who suggested to the officer that he was making up his testimony because the victim was his squad mate.

The officer denied the suggestion.

The trial resumes today.