Clarke’s widow not stunned by DNA find in bedroom

DNA evidence has indicated that there was another person present in the Clarkes’ master bedroom, other than their daughter, on the night Keith Clarke was shot and killed, the defence has revealed.

But Clarke’s widow, Dr Claudette Clarke, said, if DNA was found in the room, that would not be shocking because several members of the security forces went into her room that night.

The 63-year-old chartered accountant was shot 21 times during the raid at his home by members of the security forces, in search of then fugitive Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, who was wanted by United States authorities for drug and gunrunning offences.

Soldiers, lance corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley, as well as Private Arnold Henry, are currently on trial for his murder, in the Home Circuit Court before Justice Dale Palmer.

As the trial continued, Clarke’s widow was asked by defence lawyer Linton Gordon to answer a suggestion that the DNA of another person other than her husband and daughter was found in the house, but did not respond after prosecutor Latoya Bernard objected, stating that the question was inappropriate.

However, in a follow-up asking whether she was surprised to know that the DNA of another person other than her husband and daughter was found in the room, Dr Clarke said, “I would not be surprised.”

ESCORTED OUT THE ROOM

According to the university lecturer, she and her daughter were escorted out of the room after the shooting and, while nobody was there before the incident, several members of the security forces had been in the room.

Prior to being questioned about the DNA and being shown an unidentified document by the defence, Dr Clarke had maintained that only she, her husband and daughter were in the room or the house that night.

Having seen the document, when asked if she was still insisting that no other person was there, Dr Clarke said, “Yes, Sir, because it isn’t true.”

During further cross-examination by Gordon, Dr Clarke shared indirectly that her husband had his licensed firearm with him when he went on top of the closet in their bedroom.

The witness had initially testified that her husband told her and her daughter to lock themselves inside the bathroom and climbed on top of the closet empty-handed.

Asked whether her husband had his licensed firearm in his hand when he last returned to the room, Dr Clarke initially said she was not certain, although she knew he had it when he left.

Dr Clarke, who next testified that she could not recall saying in a statement that the next time she saw her husband in the room he had his gun, later agreed that he did, after being shown the statement.

She, however, denied saying that she saw her husband throwing his weapon on top of the closet before climbing atop it.

“I did not see him throwing anything up there,” she said, while agreeing that he told her and her daughter then to lock themselves inside the bathroom.

SMALL GUN

Gordon then asked her if she saw what her husband did with the gun, and she said she did not see, as it was a small gun.

The lawyer then suggested that Clarke had assumed an “ambush position” on top of the closet, but the widow disagreed.

At the same time, she said, “My husband was up there to protect himself, his family and his house, after the house was being attacked.”

But she quickly denied a further suggestion that her husband had been in the ambush position armed with a gun.

“When my husband came down, he didn’t have any gun. He was coming down with his back turned. Is up on top of the closet they found the gun afterwards,” she said, stunning the defence lawyers.

“You have just told us what happened for the first time,” Gordon remarked.

According to Dr Clarke, she had notified the Independent Commission of Investigations in a statement about the gun being recovered afterwards.

Gordon then read a statement given to the police in which she indicated that the gun was “over deh suh” near a cupboard, but that she did not know if it was found, asking her if that was the truth.

“As much as I can remember,” she said.

But she later told the court that she saw the police go on top of the bed and took something down, and assumed it was a gun.

Meanwhile, she denied that gunmen had been shooting at the security forces from inside her house. She also testified that she never heard the security forces shouting and asking the persons to exit the house, and that all she heard was bullets firing and things dropping on top of her house.

The trial will resume on Monday.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com