The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A JURY heard yesterday from an anonymous witness that the female he saw arguing with businessman Kurt McCartney in Gambier Village was picked out by him in an identification parade.

Witness “AB”, whose identity has been shielded by order of the Supreme Court, continued testimony about photographs of possible suspects shown to him by police which ultimately led to him identifying Lyndera Curry and Sumya Ingraham in court as the two females he saw with Thorne Edwards and Okell Farrington in Gambier the night of October 24, 2013.

When cross-examined yesterday by Curry’s lawyer, Sonia Timothy, “AB” contended that he picked out the female he saw arguing with Mr McCartney through an identification parade.

This prompted prosecutor Roger Thompson to ask Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs for legal discussions to be held in the jury’s absence. Instead, the judge excused the jury for the rest of a day in which they heard less an hour of testimony due to extensive legal discussions.

Curry, Edwards, Farrington and Ingraham were charged in November 2013 in connection with the armed robbery and murder of the victim and brother of Democratic National Alliance Leader Branville McCartney.

A fifth person, Terry Delancy, the owner of Virgo Car Rental, was charged with being an accessory after the fact and is on $15,000 bail. All five deny involvement in the killing.

Ian Cargill is representing Delancy while Ingraham, Edwards and Farrington are respectively represented by Romona Farquharson-Seymour, Terrel Butler and Philip Hilton. Sophia Pinder-Moss is assisting Mr Thompson in prosecuting.

Yesterday, Ms Timothy asked “AB” of his claims that he picked up Thorne and two females from Plantol Street on the evening in question. The witness said on his arrival he saw Thorne and two females hopping into a black four-door Honda with its untinted windows down. “Worm entered the Honda, Thorne entered the Camry,” he said.

When asked if he was driving the Camry, he said yes. However, the car was not registered in his name.

“Did they pay you for this ride to Gambier?” the lawyer asked. “Thorne gave me $10,” he said, adding that he had no money on him at the time. “AB” described the dark female as short, about 5ft 7in with braided hair below the shoulder.

“Why did you park a few feet from Last Man Standing (Bar)?” Ms Timothy asked. The witness claimed that Thorne instructed him to do so.

“Was that your first time at Last Man Standing (Bar)?” the lawyer asked. “This my second time there. I was there before in 1994 or 1996,” the witness replied.

“Would you be surprised to know that it only came into operation in 2005?” the lawyer asked. “AB” said he could not recall the exact date as “I’m not familiar with Gambier, that’s not my area but it was open when I went there.”

“Are you sure you were in Last Man Standing?” the lawyer further probed. The witness said he was. He said he was not arrested in relation to the case before the courts when asked.

The lawyer asked what compelled him to go to the police. “I just don’t believe in innocent people being killed,” the court heard.

“Was it the reward?” the lawyer probed. The witness said he knew nothing of a reward.

The lawyer suggested to “AB” that all of his testimony was a lie. The witness dismissed the suggestion.

“AB” told Ms Timothy he had identified the dark skin female at the identification parade.

Ms Timothy suggested to the witness that his statement to police differed from what he has told the court. “AB” denied that he told police he saw four persons at Plantol Street getting into a vehicle.

He was asked if he read and signed his statement. He said he didn’t read it but signed it. “You signed a statement not knowing what was in it was truly what you said?” the lawyer asked. “Yes ma’am,” the witness answered.

She probed him further about that aspect of his statement and he said “I don’t know, I told the police what I know.”

“Why didn’t you in your statement say you took them to Gambier? Wouldn’t it have been more correct to say that you were the driver?” the lawyer asked. The witness agreed with the suggestion.

“Why did you leave yourself out of this?” the lawyer asked. “AB” said he didn’t. “You told the police you were the driver?” the lawyer asked. “AB” said he did.

“You said you have a pending matter?” Ms Timothy asked. The witness said yes. “Was your arrest in November 2013 in relation to this matter?” the lawyer asked. He said no.

“So you are giving evidence in exchange for your freedom?” the lawyer asked. The witness said no.

Curry’s lawyer suggested to “AB” that he lied about everything he told the court. “I’ve not lied to this court from you started asking me questions,” the witness answered.

The lawyer put it to the witness that he didn’t see the dark female get into the jeep and drive off because “the dark female cannot drive”.

“If she cannot drive that’s probably why she rolled over the gentleman,” the witness answered.

“Which part of the body?” the lawyer probed. “I can’t say,” the witness said.

“You said you picked out this female in a photo album?” the lawyer asked. “No madam, in an ID parade” the witness answered.

It was at this point that Mr Thompson asked for legal discussions to be held.

Those will take place at 10am before the jury’s return to court for 11am today.