DR Claudette Clarke, the widow of accountant Keith Clarke, on Monday denied personally knowing convicted drug lord Christopher “Dudus” Coke and whether her late husband did any private accounting work for the former Tivoli Gardens strongman who is currently serving a 23-year sentence in a federal prison in the United States.

Dr Clarke also denied knowing whether Coke used the aliases Omar Clarke and Clarkie in May 2010.

Dr Clarke was continuing her testimony in the Home Circuit Court in Kingston, during the trial of three Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) soldiers who were charged with murder in relation to the May 27, 2010 shooting death of her husband inside his house at 18 Kirkland Heights in Red Hills, St Andrew.

The three soldiers on trial are lance corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley, as well as Private Arnold Henry.

On Monday attorney-at-law Linton Gordon, who is representing Private Henry, continued his cross-examination of Dr Clarke, which he started last week, asking if she was a reader of any of Jamaica’s two national newspapers and whether she knew of Dudus prior to May 27, 2010.

In response to the question about the newspapers, Dr Clarke said, “Not everyday, sir, whenever I can. I watch news on television and listen to the radio only when I am in my car, sir.”

In relation to her knowledge of Dudus prior to May 27, 2010, Dr Clarke said, “I would have heard his name on the news. As time went by I learned that his right name was Christopher Coke.”

Gordon asked Dr Clarke if she knew him only by the names Christopher Coke and Dudus.

“As far as I can remember, sir,” responded Dr Clarke who was then challenged with a follow-up question which sought to reveal if she had knowledge of her husband doing private accounting work for Coke.

“Are you aware that Keith Clarke did private accounting work for Dudus?” Gordon asked, before enquiring about the possibility of her husband also doing accounting for Dudus’s late father, Lester “Jim Brown” Coke.

“No sir, I am not aware of it. I know he worked for two companies, and as far as I know [this was the case] from when we met,” she replied.

Gordon then shifted his focus to Clarke’s mode of dress when he was killed.

“You gave evidence that Mr Clarke did not have on a shirt. You said you saw him enter the room and went on top of the closet. Was he wearing a shirt at that time?” Gordon probed.

“I know he usually sleeps without a shirt, but I can’t recall if he had on one that night, sir,” Dr Clarke answered.

Gordon then suggested to Dr Clarke that her husband was not wearing a shirt when he went on top of the closet while the security forces swooped down on their house in search Coke, who was wanted in the US on drugs and weapons charges.

“I suggest to you that Mr Keith Clarke had no shirt on when he went up into the closet,” Gordon said.

“That’s your suggestion, sir. I don’t remember,” Dr Clarke replied.

“Have you ever told the court that he had on his shirt?” the attorney asked.

“Maybe I did, but I don’t remember,” Dr Clarke said.

Gordon then suggested to Dr Clarke that on a previous occasion she had told the court that her husband had put on a shirt and also that he was clad in a pair of briefs.

An annoyed Dr Clarke responded, “Okay, sir; I didn’t know it was a crime if you don’t wear a shirt.”

The attorney further tested Dr Clarke’s memory of what her husband was wearing when he was killed.

“Was he wearing a pair of pants?” Gordon asked.

“I don’t remember, sir,” she replied. This led Gordon to suggest to the witness that she never saw what her husband was wearing because she was in the bathroom hiding and could not see.

Dr Clarke had previously testified that when her husband was climbing on top of the closet she was standing by the bathroom door, before she closed it.

Gordon then posed some more questions to the witness, trying to prove that she did not see clearly what was happening inside the room at the time because it was dark.

“Have you ever stated that the room was dark?” Gordon asked

Dr Clarke responded saying she had previously “stated that because I couldn’t see the small items or whatever they [the soldiers] were picking up off the floor. I could see people coming into the room because light was coming through the window. They had their helmets in their hands and were picking up some small things”.

Gordon insisted that adequate light was not coming into the room from outside and therefore she could not have possibly seen everything that took place.

“I am also suggesting to you that the dresser and curtain at the window blocked any light coming through,” he said.

Dr Clarke disagreed.

Gordon suggested to the witness that her husband, who was of dark complexion, was wearing black pants and was not wearing a shirt when he climbed on top of the closet.

“That is your suggestion, sir. I don’t remember,” Dr Clarke responded.

She disagreed with Gordon’s next suggestion that when her husband went on top of the closet he assumed an ambush position “so he could ambush anyone coming into the room”.

She said she couldn’t recall if her husband told her why he was going on top of the closet.

Earlier in her testimony Dr Clarke had said she was at home with her daughter and her husband when she heard sounds of a hovering aircraft over her house, along with continuous explosions outside the house. She said that despite looking through the bedroom window she couldn’t identify the figures moving around in her yard. She said it was her neighbour who alerted her to the presence of a lot of police and soldiers.

She also told the court that she shook her husband, who was sleeping, and told him to get up. She said that when he got up, at a particular point he took up his licensed firearm and left the room. The widow said that when he came back to the room he told her and their teenage daughter to hide inside the master bathroom and close the door. Clarke then climbed on top of the closet.

Eventually members of the security forces got to the master bedroom, at which time she said she heard someone shout, “Gun!” and then her husband was shot dead.

He was shot close to 30 times, including in the back, and also fell from the top of the closet, estimated to be 10 feet high.

On Monday, Gordon pressed Dr Clarke to say if her husband told her why he was climbing on top of the closet.

“Did he say he was going up there to see who was coming into the room?” Gordon asked.

“I don’t remember if he used those words,” Dr Clarke said. “When he first left the room and went out to the front room, when he came back he told us to go into the bathroom. He didn’t leave the room again. He just went on top of the closet. I don’t remember if he said anything during that time while climbing on top of the closet.”

Gordon asked if she had requested that her husband come into the bathroom and hide too.

Dr Clarke said “Yes, sir but I don’t remember his exact response.”

The attorney then suggested to the witness that her husband declined her request, and accused the widow of lying, ignoring questions, and telling stories.

Seemingly offended by the suggestion that she was telling stories Dr Clarke said, “I am telling stories, sir? So your suggestions are not stories, sir? I don’t know if he said he was declining. He just went on top of the closet and we closed the door.”

The trial continues today.