Lawyer claims police photographer far from objective
Keith Clarke murder trial...
A detective corporal was on Wednesday accused by attorney-at-law Peter Champagnie, KC, of failing to operate at the highest professional standard when he took photographs of Keith Clarke’s house the day the accountant was killed.
“I am suggesting to you, sir, that you were far from objective in carrying out your job. You did a poor job at 18 Kirkland Close.
“You were not very fair in what you photographed and tested for DNA. In relation to many things, you can’t recall. You have been most unhelpful in terms of what you did that day,” Champagnie told the detective corporal, who is the third witness to take the stand in the murder trial of three soldiers accused of the accountant’s death.
The detective corporal arrived at Clarke’s house at 18 Kirkland Close in Red Hills, St Andrew, on May 27, 2010 following a police/military operation, which led to the accountant being shot dead. The security forces had gone to the premises to search for then fugitive Christopher “Dudus” Coke, who was wanted in the United States on drugs and weapons charges.
During the operation, Clarke was shot more than 20 times inside the master bedroom at his house by members of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF).
It is alleged that the basement at Clarke’s house was one of the locations where Coke had been hiding out with some of his heavily armed henchmen, who challenged the security forces to a gun battle. It is alleged that the gunmen escaped in a forested area behind Clarke’s house which leads to Red Hills Road, St Andrew.
On trial for murder in relation to Clarke’s shooting death are Lance Corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley as well as Private Arnold Henry.
The detective corporal who helped to process the scene at the house and who took photographs of the scene, had his credibility dragged through the mud during cross-examination by two attorneys-at- law representing two of the accused in the matter.
Among other things, Champagnie who is representing Buckley, pressed the witness to tell the court what Clarke’s lifeless body was clad in when he took the photographs of it.
“You photographed the body of Keith Clarke?” Champagnie asked.
The detective responded saying, “Yes, sir”.
Champagnie continued his probe, inquiring whether Clarke was dressed in a pair of pants when his body was being photographed.
“I cannot recall what he was clad in,” the witness said.
Increasing the pressure on the witness, Champagnie asked him if, during his preparation for court, he read over the statements he had given in relation to the case and the detective said, “Yes, sir, I did.”
The witness was then shown a photograph of the scene.
Champagnie continued: “So, do you recall if he was dressed in any form of clothing at all?”
The policeman then agreed that the accountant had clothing on the bottom half of his body but was shirtless.
“You acted with highest level of professionalism that your training required?” Champagnie asked the detective, to which he responded by saying yes.
The detective was also asked the number of days it had taken him to photograph the entire scene at Clarke’s home, to which he said three.
The attorney also asked the detective corporal if he had been taught that pictures of crime scenes should be captured the same day of the incident.
“No, sir,” was the detective’s response, after which the attorney said he had not acted with the highest level of professionalism in terms of what his training required.
When pressed about why some aspects of the scene that could have been important to the case had not been photographed, the detective corporal said he was a creature of instructions.
On Tuesday, the policeman told Champagnie that the specific things he had photographed at the scene were only what he’d been instructed by a now-deceased Detective Inspector Mendez to photograph.
Champagnie asked him on Wednesday if it was because of that, he was not able to exercise independent professionalism, to which the policeman agreed.