Keith Clarke’s widow was adamant on Tuesday that she saw no gunmen in her yard on the night he was shot dead by soldiers 14 years ago. At the same time Dr Claudette Clarke acknowledged that two motor vehicles parked in her yard had bullet holes to the front as attorney Peter Champagnie King’s Counsel (KC) sought to strengthen the defence’s argument that shots were fired from the house at members of the security forces who had gone there in search of then fugitive Christopher “Dudus” Coke.

Dr Clarke spent another day on the witness stand at the Home Circuit Court in downtown Kingston undergoing intense cross-examination by Champagnie, who is representing Lance Corporal Odel Buckley, one of three soldiers charged with murder in relation to Keith Clarke’s shooting death at his 18 Kirkland Close house in Red Hills, St Andrew, on May 27, 2010.

The other two defendants are Lance Corporal Greg Tingling and Private Arnold Henry.

The soldiers and police had allegedly received information that Coke and seven of his cronies were there hiding from law enforcers who were trying to execute a warrant for his extradition to the United States for drug and weapons offences.

On Tuesday Dr Clarke again insisted that she did not see gunmen firing at the security forces in her yard.

“I wasn’t able to see outside from my bedroom windows. I wasn’t aware of any armed gunmen at my property that night,” Dr Clarke said.

Champagnie then told her that he would embark on a demonstration to prove to her that gunmen were at her house on May 27, 2010. Showing photographs of the scene, he asked Dr Clarke if she recognised a Toyota Prado and a Suzuki motor vehicle parked in the driveway of her house. The vehicles were parked facing the house.

“Yes, sir,” she replied, adding that the vehicles belonged to her and her late husband.

Champagnie asked her to say whether she saw any damage to the rear of the vehicles.

“I am not seeing any damage from this image but the vehicles were damaged,” Dr Clarke said.

“I am not seeing any damage to the back of the vehicles, but the house is damaged and the front of the vehicles are damaged,” she added.

Champagnie then showed her photos of the front of both vehicles. Pointing out that the windscreens had bullet holes he suggested that gunfire was coming from the direction of the house.

“Yes, sir, there is damage there,” Dr Clarke said when pressured by Champagnie to say if she agreed that the front of both vehicles were shot up.

“The windshield of the Prado your husband drove, do you accept that it is damaged?” Champagnie asked.

“Yes, sir, it was damaged,” she relied.

Champagnie then pointed to the Suzuki motorcar and asked, “Do you agree there are seven points on the windshield that appear to be damaged or have holes?”

Dr Clarke responded: “Based on your counting and pointing it is seven points that appear to be damaged. Based on your expert opinion, they appear to be holes in the vehicle.”

Her response caused Judge Dale Palmer to interject, telling her to answer the questions properly.

“Yes, it appears to be holes,” she responded.

Champagnie then asked her if she knew who caused those holes.

“Certainly not me. No, sir. I don’t know,” Dr Clarke said.

Champagnie then pointed to a motor vehicle licence plate covered by bushes on the ground in one of the photographs.

“Are you able to say if you are familiar with that plate?” he asked

After looking at the photo Dr Clarke said, “The unattached licence plate is different from ours. I don’t know how it got there.”

Champagnie then suggested to the witness that gunmen had been outside in her yard, firing weapons at the security forces and asked Dr Clarke to confirm or deny the suggestion.

“I cannot confirm or deny it because I was inside my house,” she responded.

The attorney then asked whether she could confirm if the damage to the vehicles belonging to herself and her husband had been caused by men firing at the security forces.

An annoyed Dr Clarke said, “I don’t know, sir.”

Champagnie then shifted his line of questioning to the basement of the house, where the defence has argued that Coke and his cronies were camping out.

“No one used your basement in May 2010?” Champagnie probed.

“My daughter had a birthday get-together in April,” Dr Clarke responded.

“In May 2010, the bed was always made up and no one used it?” Champagnie asked.

Dr Clarke explained that it would be the norm for the bed in the basement to remain made up, until her daughter’s friends slept over on her birthday in April 2010.

She also admitted to the jury that she had told the Independent Commission of Investigations that the bed in the basement was always made up and that no one used it. She said that at the time she made the statement she was speaking the truth “in general”.

Champagnie showed her a photograph of the bed in the basement with a sheet spread over it that appeared as if someone had been using it.

“Is that your bed in the basement?” Champagnie asked.

“Yes, sir, but I don’t know when that picture was taken. I agree that, based on the photograph, the bed was not made up,” she said.

“Do you see a white sheet?” Champagnie pressed the witness.

“Yes,sir, the white sheet has a spot on it, sir, but I can’t say what it is,” Dr Clarke responded.

Champagnie then showed Dr Clarke images of a washroom inside her house and asked her to identify it, while also pointing to brownish/reddish marks on the floor.

“It don’t look like my washroom. I am trying to see the entirety of it. Yes, it is a portion of my house. It seems like part of the basement. I see the red or brown spots on the floor but I don’t know what that is,” Dr Clarke said.

“My suggestion to you is that that is blood. Was your floor always like that before May 27, 2010?” Champagnie asked.

Dr Clarke said she did not recall it looking like that before May 27, 2010 nor did she recall it looking like that on that date.

That prompted Champagnie to ask her if she had gone into the basement on the day in question.

Dr Clarke responded: “I went to my home. I cannot recall if I went into the basement on the 27th but I know I keep my home tidy. The basement is not somewhere I use on a regular basis. The basement is kept locked,” she said, then added, in a hushed tone, “In the name of Jesus.”

The
sotto voce remark prompted Champagnie to ask her if she said something.

“No, sir, go ahead with your suggestions,” Dr Clarke replied.

The trial will resume today with Champagnie continuing his cross-examination of Dr Clarke.