KINGSTON, Jamaica- Agriculture Minister, Floyd Green tried to hold firm during his responses to questions posed to him on the witness stand by attorney-at-law, Hugh Wildman on Wednesday during the Home Circuit Court murder trial of six cops.

The minister, who is also an attorney, rejected Wildman’s many suggestions that he was not being truthful during his testimony. He insisted that he does not know any of the six cops or any of the three deceased men whose death the police are being tried for, indicating that he has no personal agenda.

On one occasion when Wildman suggested to the minister that he was not being truthful, it ended up with the Green telling the lawyer that he was a misguided attorney, who was clutching at straws.

Green is one of two alleged eyewitnesses to certain aspects of the incident surrounding the January 12, 2013 shooting deaths of Matthew Lee, Mark Allen and Ucliffe Dyer by the police. The men were travelling in a Blue Mitsubishi Outlander which cops on operation signalled to stop.  It is further alleged that men alighted from the vehicle and engaged the cops in a gunfight, during which the now deceased met their demise. A fourth man was said to have escaped and two illegal guns were allegedly seized.

Wednesday was the second day that the minister was facing intense grilling from defence attorneys, Wildman, John Jacobs and Althea Grant-Coppin.

Green said that he viewed from his bedroom window, certain aspects of the scene as it unfolded. At the time of the incident, Green lived on the top floor of a three storey apartment complex on Acadia Drive near to where the men were killed. Of note is that the minister has maintained that he did not see when the cops shot the men, but that he only saw when they became motionless on the ground.

However, defence attorneys contend that he could not have had a clear view of the events which he said he witnessed.

Green was the first witness in the trial which started in January. He was released, but was recalled to the witness stand on Friday to view photographs of the crime scene and for his testimony to be further tested.

Wildman started off his second day of cross-examining the minister since his return to the stand, by asking him if he understood the importance of the oath he took in court.

“You just took an oath a while ago. Do you understand that it binds your conscience to speak the truth?” Wildman asked the minister.

“Yes,” Green responded.

The attorney asked the minister whether after seeing photographs of the scene since Friday, if there was anything in his testimony where he thought he was mistaken.

Green told the attorney that he would have to point to specific areas.

On second thought, Green said he believed that one of the things which were highlighted in the trial on Tuesday which could have been mistaken was in relation to the positioning of the Outlander on Acadia Drive during the shooting.

“In relation to the testimony that I gave, while I am still clear that from my vantage point it was across from me, I think when we fettered out where exactly the car was parked, there was a difference in how it was positioned but definitely it doesn’t change the fact that I was looking across at the car at the time of the incident,” Green said.

Wildman asked him if he was correct to say that a man in a white shirt who Green testified was sitting behind the Outlander on the ground was facing up Acadia Drive (with his back to the apartment complex).

“That was my recollection” Green said.

“You were nonetheless able to see the blood on the shirt in the chest area,” Wildman asked.

Green said in response, “I indicated that I saw what appeared to be blood on the white shirt in the area that would be considered the top of the shirt. As I have said, I was looking from above so it was not a situation where I was parallel, but I could see down, so yes is my answer”.

Widman said, “Mr Green, would you agree with me that that man’s back would be facing you?”

Green agreed, however he indicated that from his vantage point, he saw what appeared to be blood in the chest area of the man wearing the white shirt.

“From where you are, you were able to see the frontal part of his shirt, that blood was on the chest area,” Wildman asked in a follow-up question.

Green told the attorney that in his testimony, he was very clear that he saw the man, his shirt and what appeared to be blood.

“I indicated the area in which that was. His shirt was white and I saw red substance,” Green said.

Wildman asked Green to confirm whether he said he actually saw the man seated behind the Outlander.

“To the back of the Outlander,” Green confirmed.

Wildman contested that if the man was sitting behind the Outlander, Green could not have been able to see clearly what was happening with him on the ground.

“I was able to see the man Mr Wildman. I indicated that,” Green said.

Wildman tried to get Green to explain to the seven-member jury, which direction he would have to turn to head to the crime scene upon exiting the apartment complex.

Green said that he would have to turn left but the attorney appeared dissatisfied with the response and probed further.

“And you would come up the road?” Wildman asked.

Green, who appeared bothered by being asked certain questions repeatedly, told the attorney that, “If up the road means you turn left and you go in that direction, then I have no challenge”.

Attorney, John Jacobs, pointed Green’s attention to a photograph which depicted the motor vehicle and the apartment complex in the background. That photograph was shown to Green earlier in his testimony and when it was zoomed up, someone was seen sitting on a balcony on the third floor of the apartment. The person was not easily seen before the image was zoomed in.

Jacobs asked Green if he would accept that the distance from his bedroom window to the Outlander was the same distance from the Outlander to the window.

Green agreed that it would be the same distance.

Jacobs said, “In order for you to see the person on the balcony, you would have to zoom it up”.

Green responded telling the attorney that that was because of how the photograph was taken.

Jacobs asked the witness if on the day of the incident, he was looking through the window with his natural eyes or used something to zoom up the scene.

“My natural eyes save and except that I indicated that I do wear contacts,” Green explained.

The attorney questioned why with his natural eyes in court on Wednesday, he was unable to say of what decent the man on the balcony was.

“That is because of the photograph. You would have to carry me in that natural space and put the person up there and ask me to stay from where I am and see the person,” Green said.