The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

TRYPHEMIA Meadows fought back tears in the Supreme Court yesterday as she looked at items of clothing worn by her son Marco Archer on the last day she saw him alive.

Putting on gloves before handling the items collected from the scene where a body, believed to be of a male, was found in bushes behind an apartment, Ms Meadows claimed that each item

belonged to her son as she saw him in them when he left her home on Brougham Street on September 23, 2011.

Her daughters and Marco’s sisters sobbed in court when the 53-year-old mother identified each items as Marco’s – a grey Bob Marley shirt, his khaki school pants, his boxer shorts and the Nike slippers she had washed for him that day.

Garvin Gaskin, deputy director of public prosecutions, asked the mother if she recalled authorising anyone on that day to “take those clothes off Marco?”

The witness, through tears, shook her head and said “no.”

“Did you know the defendant who sits in the prisoner’s dock?” the prosecutor asked. Ms Meadows again said no.

Defendant Kofhe Goodman, 37, of Yorkshire Drive, faces a murder charge, which he denies. It is claimed that between September 23 and 28 of 2011, he caused the death of Marco Archer who disappeared from Brougham Street and was found dead days later.

Yesterday Ms Meadows took the witness stand in the afternoon session of the murder trial and recalled the day of September 23, 2011.

“On the 23rd of September 2011, my son, Marco, left home to go to school around eight o’clock and returned home from school after four,” she began.

“When he reach, I said ‘Marco when you catch yourself, I want you to go by Milo Butler store to get me a can of Baygon.’”

“He said ‘Yes mommy,’” the court was told.

Ms Meadows told the court that Marco had asked to use the restroom first and while in the restroom, complained of a loose stomach, having eaten something at school and feeling bad ever since.

After he came out of the restroom, she gave him a shirt out of a clean pile of clothes and told him to put back on his school pants “cause you coming right back.”

She said he turned back to charge the laptop and left for the store. He returned shortly after with the spray and gave her the bag.

“I said ‘Boy, you is a good boy today cause you didn’t take any change,’” the mother said.

“He laughed and said ‘I didn’t take any change because they didn’t have what I want’” Ms Meadows said.

He asked her for a quarter to go and get something he wanted and she told him to hurry because the rain was about to come down. The rain did fall shortly afterwards and it came down hard, according to the witness.

“I always said ‘Marco, don’t come home in the rain cause you is get sick’,” she added.

The rain had stopped sometime later and she realised Marco had not come back from the shop.

“I walked out to the front of the yard, called his name and I didn’t see him,” the mother said.

She walked across the street to the store where he had gone and inquired from the shopkeeper if they had seen Marco, even describing his attire.

The mother left the store and continued her search, asking around the neighbourhood to locate her son with no success.

“Had anybody seen him?” the prosecutor asked.

“No. I was confused at that point because Marco don’t keep company,” the mother said.

It was at this point that she called her daughter, Tancia Humes, and informed her of Marco’s disappearance. After the phone call, she continued her search until her daughter arrived and they proceeded to Claridge Road where Valkeisha and LaSummer Archer resided, the place where Marco stayed on weekends.

“I know he wouldn’t go back to Claridge Road,” she said, explaining that he had come from there before coming home from school.

“I still went to Claridge Road and I went through all the corners,” she added, but her son could still not be found.

Ms Meadows said she went to the police to inform them of his disappearance and returned again with a picture of Marco.

The prosecutor asked the mother if she, during her continued search, gave anyone a description of what Marco was wearing when he left his Brougham Street home.

“Yes,” the witness said.

“Did you authorise anyone with the following name, Kofhe Goodman, to accompany Marco anywhere?” Mr Gaskins asked.

“No,” Ms Meadows answered.

However, Goodman’s attorney, Geoffrey Farquharson, objected to this line of questioning, submitting to Justice Bernard Turner that the Crown had produced no evidence from any witness “that the accused accompanied the deceased.”

Mr Gaskins submitted that the question was relevant to the Crown’s case because it was the Crown’s contention that this was so.

The question was allowed and Mr Gaskin continued his examining of the witness.

“Did you authorise anyone by that name to transport him anywhere?” the prosecutor asked. Ms Meadows said “no.”

“Do you know anyone by that name?” the prosecutor asked next. The witness again said, “no.”

“Do you know anyone on Yorkshire Street?” Mr Gaskins asked. “No,” Ms Meadows answered.

When asked by the prosecutor how long Marco had lived with her, she said “from the day he was born.”

The mother said he was not only her son, but “he was my friend” and everywhere she went, aside from school, he accompanied her.

“Have you seen Marco interact with other persons?” the prosecutor asked.

“With his nieces and nephews,” Marco’s mother said.

“Have you seen him interact with adult strangers?” the prosecutor then asked.

“No. I don’t let him hang out with adults,” the grief stricken mother said, adding that she always told him things could happen and she didn’t want him to get hurt.

Ms Meadows told the court that her son always came home after school other than “a day or two out of the week” when he would go to Ray Minus’ boxing gym.

“He save his lunch money to go there,” his mother said.

Mr Gaskin asked Justice Turner for leave for Ms Meadows to be shown the exhibited items that were collected from Yorkshire Street.

Despite an objection from Mr Farquharson, leave was granted.

Ms Meadows’ eyes filled with tears as she put gloves on and was handed the first exhibit by the court’s clerk. She lifted up a grey Bob Marley shirt and the sobbing from Marco’s siblings began.

Ms Meadows fought back her own tears as she said that even though the shirt was torn, “that’s Marco shirt.”

“What’s the size of the shirt?” the prosecutor asked.

“Medium,” the sobbing mother replied.

The khaki pants were then presented to her and she said: “His pants wasn’t dirty like this when he had it on but this is his pants.”

She identified the subsequent items, boxer shorts and Nike slippers, as Marco’s.

When asked if she recalled authorising anyone on that day to take those clothes off Marco, the mother shook her head, and replied: “No.”

“Did you know the defendant who sits in the prisoner’s dock?” the prosecutor asked. Ms Meadows again said no.

In the brief cross-examination by Mr Farquharson, due to time constraints, Ms Meadows was asked about her statement to police and the conflicting contents in them.

Ms Meadows answered that at the time, she wasn’t thinking about what time he came about.

She was only interested in “finding my baby.”

“So you told police your son came home at about 3pm,” Mr Farquharson asked.

“I told you I was upset at the time. Thank God I could’ve even make the statement. Thank God he was even with me,” the witness said.

“Ma’am believe it or not, God is always with you,” Mr Farquharson responded before asking her again if she told police Marco came home at about 3pm.

“Yes I did,” Ms Meadows answered.

“You told the police at about 4pm he made his way back home from Milo Butler store?” the attorney asked. Ms Meadows said “yes.”

“Ma’am, it was about 5:30pm when you noticed your son had not returned from the store, an hour later correct?” the attorney asked.

“Yes,” the witness said.

The trial resumes today at 10am.