The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

A DEFENCE attorney yesterday accused a crime scene investigator of engaging in "pretty, childish fakery" to convince jurors that the car he processed was the one three men used to execute the 2013 Fox Hill mass shooting.

Geoffrey Farquharson accused Detective Corporal Navar Neely of "misleading" the jury by suggesting that the silver Honda Accord he processed was the one from which three men fatally shot four people and injured six others.

Mr Farquharson asserted that another police officer who "does the same thing" as D/Cpl Neely, wrote a report sometime after the incident stating that the car used in the shooting was actually brown.

Additionally, Mr Farquharson asserted that the silver car's owner has said there was no damage to her vehicle, despite the D/Cpl Neely's saying the ignition switch was damaged and parts of it were found in another part of the car.

Additionally, Mr Farquharson asserted that when police discovered the vehicle in question moments after the shooting, it was still "running on the street", and the key was still in the ignition.

Thus, Mr Farquharson said D/Cpl Neely's evidence was "obvious fakery", because although he was merely acting on instructions from a senior officer, his evidence still had a misleading effect on the jury.

When D/Cpl Neely said he couldn't have possibly known any details about which car was used in the incident, Mr Farquharson asserted that the officer perhaps took photographs of the wrong vehicle, unbeknownst to him.

Mr Farquharson's assertions came during the second day of trial before Justice Deborah Fraser concerning the Freedom Park mass shooting on December 17, 2013.

Peter Rolle, Justin Williams, and Jermaine Curry are the accused. However, a fourth man was also in the vehicle, according to Crown prosecutor Zoe Gibson, and that man is expected to give evidence against the three others.

It is alleged that the trio murdered four people - Claudezino Davis, Shaquille Demeritte, Eric Morrison and Shenique Sands. They are also charged with the attempted murder of Chino Davis, Janet Davis, John Davis, Samuel Ferguson, Jermaine Pratt and Leroy Taylor.

According to initial reports, around 6pm on the date in question, 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 at the scene while ten others were taken to hospital in private vehicles and an ambulance. Demeritte, Morrison and Sands later died in hospital of their injuries.

During the first day of trial, D/Cpl Neely said at about 9.30am on December 28, 2013, and while on duty, he spoke to one of his superiors who gave him certain information and instructions concerning a Honda vehicle.

As a result, the senior officer led him to the parking lot at CDU, where he observed a silver coloured, four-door Honda Accord registered to Maxwell and Eric Culmer Curry. The vehicle was a right-hand drive, D/Cpl Neely said.

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.

The officer said he also observed a screwdriver on the back seat, and that several sunglasses as well as a number of fired casings of different calibres were scattered about the car.

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 calibres 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.

The officer said he photographed the vehicle in situ 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.

The areas he obtained fingerprints from were the right rear glass; the front right glass; the front, left fender; the interior handles; the rear view mirror as well as a side-view mirror; as well as one of the sunglasses.

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

Yesterday, Mr Farquharson interrogated D/Cpl Neely about the .223 casings he had found on the floor of the driver's seat under the steering wheel. He said that was an "absolutely, ridiculous, stupid thing" to suggest, as it meant the driver was also shooting. And if so, it would mean that the person sitting next to him in the passenger seat would have gotten shot in the process, as the park was to the left of the vehicle.

To substantiate his assertion, Mr Farquharson suggested the police had previously stated that the vehicle used to execute the shooting was travelling from east to west at the time of the incident. The attorney also suggested that the car was said to have been on the north side of the park, shooting towards the south.

Thus, he said, had the driver been shooting, he would have shot the front passenger "right to pieces" in the process - due to his previous assertions that .223 bullets are used in AK-47 assault rifles or similar weapons - and thus meaning that there would have been blood "all over the front passenger seat".

Mr Farquharson then asked the officer if he had tested the roof for gunpowder residue, to which the officer said no. Mr Farquharson then said that was because no one apparently told D/Cpl Neely that some of the occupants of the vehicle were said to have been seated in the window of the vehicle and shooting over the roof at the park.

Thus, Mr Farquharson said, the Honda Accord he processed at the CDU compound was a "staged scene".

Mr Farquharson asserted that the owner of the Honda Accord, a woman, said police took her to see her car at some point, and when she saw the vehicle she could see "no real damage" on it. And if so, Mr Farquharson said everything D/Cpl Neely produced as evidence in court "is a bunch of fakery".

Mr Farquharson then asked D/Cpl Neely if the senior officer who instructed him to photograph and process the silver coloured Honda Accord told him that officers found that vehicle running on the street moments after the incident. And that officers found the keys in the ignition while it was running.

When D/Cpl Neely said he was not told those things, Mr Farquharson said such an answer was expected, because if he knew he "wouldn't have put that foolishness" in his official report.

"It's fakery. And it's pretty, childish, obvious fakery," Mr Farquharson charged.

When D/Cpl Neely replied by stating that he did not do what Mr Farquharson had claimed, the attorney responded by saying: "Did you not do it, sir, or did you not do it deliberately?"

D/Cpl Neely's answer remained the same.

Mr Farquharson asserted that a police officer who performs the same functions as D/Cpl Neely, said in a report that the vehicle in question was brown, while D/Cpl Neely has pictures of a silver/gray vehicle.

"How did you get a gray car?" Mr Farquharson asked, noting that D/Cpl Neely was never on the crime scene and didn't know anything about the vehicle.

"Whoever it was that told you to take a picture of this car, caused you to mislead this court," Mr Farquharson charged, adding that it is "obvious" that the Honda Accord he processed was not the vehicle used at the crime scene.

The case continues.