Case collapses against one more defendant

The prosecution in the Clansman-One Don Gang trial was on Tuesday dealt yet another blow after its case against one of the remaining 27 defendants not only collapsed, but it failed to prove that the gang was responsible for the 2017 double murder of two men in the Rivoli section of Spanish Town, St Catherine.

Defendant Carl Beech was freed of being a part of a criminal organisation and of two counts of facilitating applicable offence by a criminal organisation, while five defendants were also acquitted of facilitating the commission of a murder conspiracy by a criminal organisation.

Daniel McKenzie, brothers Marco Miller and Peter Miller, Dwight Hall and Kemar Harrison were the remaining defendants on the count after three others were freed and another died.

Of note is that this was the only count the defendants faced besides being a member of a criminal organisation, as the other counts on which they were charged had failed and the Crown had also conceded on another.

The men were charged with facilitating the murder conspiracy on a date unknown between in March 2017.

Beech was charged with facilitating the murder and conspiracy to murder of a person called ‘Outlaw’ on November 2, 2017, in Lauriston, St Catherine.

A former member of the gang had testified that Beech had volunteered to accompany him and defendant Tareek James, who went to carry out the murder.

The witness claimed that Bryan had ordered the man killed and had selected his alleged bodyguard and top shooter to do the job.

He had testified that Bryan had also instructed him to pick up another gang member, but while they were on their way, Beech saw them and offered to come, while saying, “From dem man yah in a di car, mi know say somebody a go dead.”

But the judge, in his not guilty verdict, said that evidence by itself did not prove that Beech was a member of the organisation or that he knew that James and the driver were members of a gang.

The judge also highlighted that no evidence was presented during the trial that Beech had attended gang meetings or had conversations with the two main witnesses.

Two ex-gangsters had given conflicting testimony about the planning and execution of the murder. The judge, however, said that he accepted the testimony of the witness who was the gang’s banker as his account makes better sense, based on the sequence of his evidence and also that his evidence was clear, simple and uncomplicated.

The judge said he also accepted that it was the other main witness who had planned the murder with Bryan and had suggested that James be used, and it was endorsed by Bryan.

While one of the main witnesses had only mentioned him in this murder, the judge pointed out that the other main witness made no mention of Beech.

STILL IN CUSTODY

Beech, however, will not be released as he is in custody in relation to a murder.

In relation to the other incident, the same prosecution witness had testified that on the night in question, McKenzie had asked him to take him to a netball court in the community.

According to the ex-gangster, when he arrived there, he stumbled upon two men on their knees being beaten by the men and pleading for their lives.

While claiming that he was not aware of the hit on the men, the prosecution witness said he begged for the victims but that his cronies did not budge, saying that the men would call the police, if freed.

The ex-gangster said he abandoned his plan to visit his girlfriend and went home and was later told that the men were murdered.

Justice Sykes, in delivering his findings, said the witness’ evidence has failed to advance the Crown’s case.

He also explained that the identification evidence was unsatisfactory while noting that there was no evidence of lighting next to the netball court.

The judge said the evidence that was given was in relation to a light bulb on a shop near the entrance of the lane leading to where the men were. However, he said that was not able to satisfy the required standard that must be met in relation to lighting and identification.

Meanwhile, one of the defendants, Ted Prince, caused quite a shock earlier in the proceedings when he urinated inside the courtroom.

The defendant, who is in Court Two, was captured on the Court One video link monitor, jumping over a bench and going into a corner to urinate.

This was moments after a police officer had alerted the judge that Prince wanted to address the court. However, before he was given a chance, the jaw-dropping occurrence unfolded.

While he was relieving himself, an officer indicated to the judge that he wanted to use the bathroom and the court was adjourned.

Justice Sykes, however, appeared to have been oblivious to the development, and on the resumption of the proceedings, he made no comments in relation to Prince’s behaviour.

While many were heard denouncing Prince’s behaviour as rude and disrespectful, The Gleaner was told by a police source that the defendant had repeatedly told the court police officer that he wished to use the bathroom, but was told to wait for the break.

The Gleaner was unable to ascertain whether he would be charged with any offence.

Justice Sykes will continue assessing the evidence and giving his findings today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com