Digicel rep claims authorship of documents submitted to police
Published:Wednesday | September 25, 2019 | 12:12 AMTamara Bailey/Gleaner Writer
Mandeville, Manchester:
A representative from telecommunications company Digicel yesterday confirmed that having received the request from the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA) for information on some of the accused, she created the document submitted from the company’s database.
She was giving testimony as the multimillion-dollar Manchester Municipal Corporation fraud trial continued yesterday.
As the defence sought to clarify the authenticity of the document that had no date and no authorship, the witness confirmed that she did not alter or change the information but copied it from the database into the document she was preparing for submission.
She said the information regarding the subscribers in question were placed on two CDs and given to the police.
Attorney Norman Godfrey questioned if that act was in breach of Section 17 of the Telecommunications Act, to which she responded no.
A digital forensic examiner attached to MOCA took the stand shortly thereafter and revealed how he came about seizing cell phones, a computer and tablets from the home of former deputy superintendent of roads and works at the then Manchester Parish Council, Sanja Elliott.
The digital forensic examiner said he was among members of a MOCA team that went to Elliott’s house. His role was to identify all digital devices believed to be of interest to the accused.
According to the witness, two Samsung Galaxy phones, one Apple iMac, one Samsung tablet and a Samsung Tab 3 were seized.
Proceedings were halted for just over 15 minutes, seemingly because of the presence of another officer attached to MOCA. The cop was asked to leave the courtroom before the matter continued. No reasons for ordering his removal were announced.
As the matter resumed, the prosecution sought to admit the document bearing the list of items that were seized and signed by the accused and police at the time of seizure.
But the defence requested that it be excluded, as there was no clear indication that the witness was cautioned and knew exactly what he was signing to.
However, after deliberations, the document was accepted.
The final witness for day, who falls at number 28 of the pool of witnesses, was a representative of a third noted financial institution.
She gave details on the requirements needed to open accounts and to conduct transactions, including deposits and transfers.
The witness, who has a managerial post, said that in 2016, she received an email seeking information on Elliott and whether he had accounts there.
She said a search revealed that he had a fixed deposit and a savings account, which she indicated in her email reply.
She said she later received a court order requesting documents in relation to the accused and provided a printout of the statements and other relevant information from both accounts.
She returns to the stand today.