Defence attorney challenges existence of ‘duppy trucks’
DEFENCE attorney Alexander Shaw on Monday challenged the evidence of the two ex-Klansman gang members-turned-State witnesses surrounding the posse’s infamous ‘duppy trucks’, allegedly used only when murders and shootings were to be conducted, saying glaring differences in their testimony about those vehicles give rise to questions as to whether they really exist.
According to Witness Number Two, who was the first to take the stand last September when the trial began, the duppy truck — a stolen grey Nissan Tiida bought from criminals in Lauriston, St Catherine, for $50,000 — was assigned to the care of one of Shaw’s three clients in the matter, the accused Andre Golding, also called Rae Tae Blacks, who kept it out of sight in a lane in Buck Town, St Catherine, when it was not being used for shootings and murders.
According to Witness Number Two, the vehicle had been so named because “every time it drive out is either a shooting or murder”. He said the machine, which was used for incidents in and around St Catherine, was so well-guarded that it was never allowed into a petrol station.
“We would buy gas in a bottle and drop it off for the duppy truck because they can’t carry that car to any gas station because you don’t want anybody to see that car,” he had told the court. He went further to detail how, after a failed hit on three men marked for death by the gang, he was instructed by alleged faction leader, Andre “Blackman” Bryan, to “pilot” the death car, which was being driven by its assigned driver, back to its hiding spot in Buck Town. He explained that his purpose for driving in front of the vehicle was to “make sure no police take away the car”.
Golding is facing charges on count two of the 25-count indictment for being a member of a criminal organisation. This after the Crown last Thursday said it would not be pursuing its case against him for the 2018 murder of an individual called Ice.
But Shaw, addressing Chief Justice Bryan Sykes on Monday during no-case submissions by members of the defence team, said the accounts of the two witnesses on the vehicles, and the silence of even the investigators about those cars, was eerie. Furthermore, he said there was no credible evidence linking his client to the gang.
“There is no evidence of these two duppy trucks or even a photograph of them. Witness Number One spoke about duppy trucks, and that they were kept at the Golden Age Home on Monk Street in Rivoli. In cross-examination we tried to ascertain from him how many of these alleged duppy trucks existed. He said that there were more than five duppy trucks, and he paid for more than three, albeit that he was not the banker of gang, the only banker being Witness Number Two,” Shaw stated.
According to the attorney, “here is a glaring discrepancy in the evidence of both witnesses, as both accounts cannot be true”.
“There is no evidence or mention from the investigating officer about these duppy trucks, or anything from the Golden Age Home. This bit of evidence should be viewed through the prism of Witness Number Two’s evasive attitude in cross-examination about the geography of Rivoli being different from Buck Town,” Shaw said further.
“He tried to make the point that they are the same place, with zinc fence parting them. The Golden Age Home on Monk Street is a totally different place from Buck Town,” Shaw maintained.
The attorney also made a no-case submission for his client Stephanie Christie, also called Mumma — the sole female defendant — in respect of count 25 which charges her jointly with others for allegedly facilitating the murder of the individual called Ice.
According to Shaw, most telling of all was the fact Witness Number Two, in his testimony, had claimed that Witness Number One was part of the crew that went in search of Ice but Witness Number One made no mention of the incident. Furthermore, the attorney accused Witness Number Two of embellishing his testimony to the court with material he did not mention in any of his statements to the police.
According to the attorney, it was either the witness had suffered from a lapse in memory about the parties present on that escapade or he was just being “deliberately mendacious” in his account.
Other defence attorneys making their pitch to Chief Justice Sykes for their clients to be freed pointed to glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of both main witnesses regarding incidents which they both claimed to have known about and participated in, arguing that this should not be ignored by the trial judge when he finally rules.
Submissions resume this morning at 10:00 in the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston.
The trial, which began with 33 defendants, now has 29 remaining after the Crown last Thursday indicated that it had dropped its case against four of them because of lack of evidence on some counts with which they were charged and insufficient evidence in others.