The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

THE trial of three men accused of the 2013 Fox Hill mass shooting that killed four people and injured six others got underway yesterday.

Jurors heard the prosecution plans to call the fourth occupant of the car used in the drive-by shooting as one of its witnesses.

Prosecutor Zoe Gibson, in an opening address to the jury, said the fourth occupant of the Honda Accord vehicle allegedly used by Peter Rolle, Jermaine Curry and Justin Williams will give key evidence against the three accused.

Ms Gibson further stated that the jury can expect to hear testimony from one or more of the persons injured during the shooting, as well as family members of the four people who were killed in the mayhem.

Her comments came at the first day of trial concerning the December 27, 2013 shooting at Freedom Park before Justice Deborah Fraser, just over six years after the incident took place.

Williams, Rolle and Curry are accused of murdering four people - Claudezino Davis, Shaquille Demeritte, Eric Morrison and Shenique Sands on that date. They are also charged with the attempted murder of Chino Davis, Janet Davis, John Davis, Samuel Ferguson, Jermaine Pratt and Leroy Taylor.

According to reports, around 6pm, occupants of a small, dark vehicle opened fire “with a variety of weapons” in the area just behind the basketball court where several people were gathered awaiting Junkanoo results.

Davis was pronounced dead on the scene while 10 others were taken to hospital. Demeritte, Morrison and Sands later died in hospital of their injuries.

Taking the witness stand yesterday, Detective Corporal Navar Neely, a crime scene investigator, gave evidence about his analysis of a Honda Accord registered to Maxwell and Eric Culmer Curry.

D/Cpl Neely said he made checks of the vehicle and observed the ignition switch appeared to be damaged. Various parts of the ignition switch were also observed in a compartment on the driver’s door.

D/Cpl Neely said he also observed a screwdriver on the back seat, and also noted that several sunglasses as well as a number of fired casings of different calibers were scattered throughout the vehicle.

According to the officer, he said he observed 9mm and .223 cartridge casings, the latter of which Mr Farquharson said are fired from AK-47 assault rifles or “similar weapons”. D/Cpl Neely said he found out the calibers of the casings by looking at the numbers at the bottom of the cartridges.

D/Cpl Neely said he also observed “bullet fragments” in the vehicle.

As a result, the officer said he photographed the vehicle and upon completion, the various items were collected and packaged. Then, using fingerprint powder, D/Cpl Neely said he processed and consequently obtained 17 latent fingerprints from various parts of the vehicle.

D/Cpl Neely said he did not obtain any prints from the vehicle’s exterior door handles. He also said he did not process any of the casings for fingerprints out of concerns he may have inadvertently compromised any ballistic value the casings would have had.

Nonetheless, the officer said he handed the fingerprints he lifted, as well as the various exhibit items over to senior officers for them to be processed. A number of photographs were developed from the pictures D/Cpl Neely took, which were exhibited in court.

Lead Crown attorney Roger Thompson asked the officer if one of the fingerprints he collected was that of Rolle, but the defence attorneys swiftly criticised him for asking such a question.

Murrio Ducille, who represents Curry, called the question “outrageous” and “ridiculous”. Sonia Timothy, who represents Rolle, said it was a “leading question”, while Mr Farquharson asserted that the damage Mr Thompson caused by calling Rolle’s name is irreversible because it cannot be erased from the jury’s mind.

D/Cpl Neely never did get to answer the question.

Then, while being cross-examined by Mr Farquharson, D/Cpl Neely was made aware of the fact that he did not take any photographs of the shell casings because they had fingerprints on them. In response, the officer said he didn’t because there weren’t any prints on them.

When asked by the attorney if he dusted the casings for fingerprints, D/Cpl Neely said no, as he wanted to maintain the integrity of the items for future ballistic analysis.

However, Mr Farquharson suggested that his concerns were pointless, as the entire scene he photographed had been unsecured for 24 hours, as he asserted that the event took place at 6pm on the previous day. And during that time, Mr Farquharson said police could have altered it “any way they wanted to”.

“I’m not saying they did, I’m not saying they didn’t,” Mr Farquharson said.

D/Cpl Neely was shown one of the photographs he took, which Mr Farquharson said shows that the Honda Accord operated via a keyless ignition system. Mr Farquharson said that was evidenced by a “push start” button near the dashboard.

Thus, Mr Farquharson said that the standard ignition switch D/Cpl Neely took another photograph “strongly suggests” that the Honda Accord in question was actually a car used by some unknown person who steals car parts, thus explaining the ignition switch’s presence in that vehicle.

Another explanation, Mr Farquharson posited, is that the car was tampered with by someone who wanted to make it look as if somebody broke into that car.

Mr Farquharson then drew D/Cpl Neely’s attention to the fact that the Honda Accord vehicle in question is a right-hand drive vehicle. Thus, he asserted that if the driver is alleged to be one of the shooters, he would have likely shot the passenger next to him in the process.

However, Mr Thompson objected to such an assertion, charging that it was pure speculation.

The matter continues today.