The Tribune

By Nico Scavella

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEYS for three Water and Sewerage Corporation employees yesterday challenged the claims that another employee’s cellphone pictures of a fire hydrant in a property off Carmichael Road were the ones used to incriminate their clients for allegedly stealing the item.

Murrio Ducille, attorney for LeJaith Paul, and Alex Dorsett, attorney for Latario Bowe and Kerven Pierre, claimed there is no nexus between the cell phone pictures Donna Petty took in late-November 2017 and the hard copy photos WSC officials used to formally investigate their clients.

At the start of trial over the alleged theft of the $1,000 fire hydrant by the three accused, Ms Petty, an administrative assistant to the corporation’s Deputy General Manager Robert Deal, told Magistrate Samuel McKinney she took pictures of the fire hydrant in question with her Samsung cellphone on November 21, 2017, while at a certain location off Carmichael Road.

While not specifying exactly where off Carmichael Road the premises in question is located, Ms Petty said it was a white, two-story building that was fenced in.

Nonetheless, Ms Petty said she sent the pictures she took via WhatsApp to Mr Deal before deleting them from her phone. She also said she subsequently wrote a report on the matter and submitted that report to Mr Deal via email, with the photos attached.

Ms Petty said a certain woman also previously delivered a certain package to her while at work, which she in turn gave to Mr Deal. She said he opened the package in her presence, which contained certain photos.

However, she said she could not say what happened to the photos.

However, Mr Ducille challenged that line of examination by the prosecutor Philip Davis, charging that a “chasm” exists between Ms Petty’s cellphone pictures and the physical photos contained in the package.

Mr Ducille further submitted, with the endorsement of Mr Dorsett, that as there was nothing before the court that established a correlation between the pictures Ms Petty took and those contained in the package, her evidence concerning the pictures she took are hearsay “and will continue to be hearsay”.

Nonetheless, Mr Deal, upon taking the witness stand after Ms Petty, said while on duty on November 20, 2017, around 10 am, he spoke with Ms Petty, along with another woman on the telephone.

Afterwards, he said he received a package containing certain photos. After examining them, he shared them with the corporation’s general manager, the assistant general manager of human resources, as well as the corporation’s Internal Controls and Compliance (ICC) Division.

At the tail end of his involvement in the matter, Mr Deal also said he spoke with and subsequently emailed the information to Elwood Donaldson and Kimberly Rolle, both officials attached to the ICC Division.

Prior to the end of his involvement in the matter, however Mr Deal said he met with Paul in connection with the matter.

However, Mr Dorsett objected to that bit of evidence from Mr Deal, charging that Paul’s statement to police contains no evidence of that meeting between the two ever taking place.

Thus, Mr Dorsett said the Crown’s line of questioning on the matter should be “prohibited”, as he charged the lack of “due disclosure” on the Crown’s part could be prejudicial to the defence.

Pierre’s attorney Murrio Ducille further submitted that Mr Dorsett is “groping in the dark” due to Mr Deal’s revelation, and that Mr Dorsett ought to have had that information in his possession prior to trial.

Insp Davis responded by saying all of the information the Crown has on the matter was shared with the defence.

Magistrate McKinney said while he noted the objection from the defence attorneys, they would have an opportunity to test the veracity of Mr Deal’s testimony during cross examination.

Mr Deal went on to say that the meeting with he and Paul was held at the corporation’s JFK compound and saw the attendance of officials from the Bahamas Utilities Services and Allied Workers Union as well as management representatives.

During that meeting, Mr Deal said he outlined to Paul and the union that WSC had received certain information that he was involved in the removal, transport and ultimately delivery of a WSC item without authorisation.

Mr Deal said he did not tell Paul what the item in question was during that meeting. Nonetheless he said Paul denied any involvement in the matter.

Mr Deal said after consulting with other executive managers at WSC, the decision was made to suspend Paul for investigative purposes.

Police Inspector Kemuel Knowles, attached to the anti-corruption branch of the Royal Bahamas Police Force, also testified how on December 13, 2017, while on duty, met and spoke with two WSC employees, namely Mr Donaldson and Ms Rolle, who gave him certain information that was verbal, written and in video format.

As a result of that information, Insp Knowles said on January 3 of this year, he arrested and cautioned Bowe, Paul and Pierre in reference to stealing by reason of employment.

Insp Knowles said he subsequently interviewed each defendant in connection with the matter, and all three men denied all of the allegations. After each would have read and signed their records of interview, they were released from custody.

Insp Knowles then said on January 15, he saw and spoke with individual named Ronesto Riley who gave him certain information, which was recorded on an RBPF statement form. As a result of that information, Bowe, Paul and Pierre were re-arrested and charged.

The matter is adjourned to May 15.

In January, Bowe, Paul and Pierre were arraigned on one count of stealing by reason of employment.

It is alleged they stole a fire hydrant valued at $1,024.92 from the WSC property on John F Kennedy Drive, which they had access to by reason of their employment.

All three men have denied the allegations.