A series of customer pick-up notes attached to six 2018 purchases made from a prominent local merchant were the subject of witness testimony during the fraud trial of former Education Minister Ruel Reid and his co-accused on Thursday.

The testimony and evidence put forward by the prosecution concerned who had purchased and collected the items: a Samsung Smart TV and an Android TV box bought on March 17, 2018, as well as a Proctor kettle, Hamilton Beach juicer, Black + Decker iron and a Conair footspa bought on April 29, 2018.

Thursday’s witness, who appeared in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court before Senior Parish Court Judge Sanchia Burrell, testified that he had provided direct oversight of safety and security at the merchant.

He said that when cash purchases, which can refer to cash, debit and credit card transactions, are made, a valid government- issued identification card must be provided.

Led during examination- in-chief, the witness confirmed to the court that an account is created for customers using that ID, customers’ first, middle, and last initials and their date of birth; and that no person can make a purchase on another person’s account.

Once a full cash payment is made, he confirmed, the system automatically releases that account and sends information to the merchant’s warehouse supervisor, who prints a delivery note or customer pick-up note.

The witness indicated that customers can then pick up the items from the warehouse, and this would entail both the customer and sales representative visiting the delivery area, verifying the delivery note/customer pick-up note, the sales rep testing the items in view of the customer, and the customer signing for the item and showing identification.

The witness noted that the customer pick-up note would detail the customer’s name, phone number, address, date of purchase, date of pick-up, product description, merchant stamp and serial number where applicable.

He then went on to confirm to the court that on February 5, 2019, a police sergeant called him and provided him with a telephone number.

The witness said a search of the merchant’s records database retrieved at least six customer pick-up notes associated with the phone number, under the name Ruel Reid, which were then printed and verified against the information in the database.

The witness confirmed that on February 20, 2019 he signed the six copies and, having been a justice of the peace (JP) at the time, stamped them, certifying that he had seen the original and that this was a true copy, signed the six documents with his signature and embossed each with a JP seal.

The prosecution then asked for six documents to be shown to the witness.

Attorney Anthony Armstrong, who alongside Linda Wright, represents Reid in the matter, was the only attorney present in court at the time.

Oswest Senior Smith, King’s Counsel, who represents Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence, joined later via Zoom.

Holding for the other attorneys, Armstrong showed all the defendants — Reid, Reid’s wife Sharen Reid and his daughter Sharelle Reid, former head of the Caribbean Maritime University(CMU) Fritz Pinnock, and Councillor Brown Lawrence — the documents before they were handed over to the witness.

The witness then confirmed that they were the six customer pick-up notes he had printed in relation to Ruel Reid.

The witness was asked whether the purchaser of an item could have another person pick it up, to which he responded that he had never had that experience, but that it could be facilitated via an authorisation note.

He then confirmed that no authorisation notes were attached to the six customer pick-up notes.

Under cross-examination by Armstrong, however, he was questioned on whether he, by looking at the pick-up notes, would be able to say which person picked up the items, to which he responded that he would not.

Armstrong also pointed out what he described as a note on one of the documents, which the witness said was a serial number not present on any of the other items.

Under re-examination, the prosecutor pointed out that the witness had said there were no authorisations present on the notes to indicate anyone else had picked up the items, but he had told the defence he would not be able to say who picked them up.

To this the witness responded that based on his understanding of the question asked by Armstrong, he had been referring to the fact that he had not seen who picked up the items.

The judge then asked the witness, based on the receipts, on the face of it, who picked up the items.

An objection was raised by Armstrong, who indicated that the witness had been clear in his answer that he would not be able to say who picked up the items, during cross-examination.

The objection, however, was overruled by Justice Burrell, who cited the witness’ clarification of that answer.

Upon being asked who, based on the customer pick-up notes, had collected the items, he told the court “Ruel Reid” in respect to all six items.

The judge also referred to the serial number on one of the documents and not present on the others, questioning what ‘originals’ he had signed to seeing, at which point he told the court, for the first time, that there had been physical documents alongside the electronic records that he had seen.

Reid and his co-accused are before the court on a 35-count indictment, accused of participating in a scheme with others unknown that siphoned off more than $25 million from the Ministry of Education and CMU.

They have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Bail was extended for the accused in the case until court resumes on Tuesday.