Sleuth concedes failure to get description of accused before arrest

One of the investigators into the July 2020 murder of Portland businesswoman Tonia McDonald has admitted that the police never ascertained a description of her alleged killer before he was apprehended.

The witness, a detective corporal, while being grilled by the attorney-at-law Ernest Davis about what the police had used to confirm the alleged killer’s identity, said the police were mainly going off the convicted murderer’s say-so.

At the same time, he disagreed with the lawyer’s suggestion that Oscar Barnes’ identity is in question.

Barnes was arrested in Annotto Bay, St Mary, after he was pointed out by Denvalyn Minott, who claimed he was contracted by the woman’s husband, Everton ‘Beachy Stout’ McDonald, to kill her, but had subcontracted the hit job to Barnes.

Minott, a Portland fisherman, pleaded guilty to murder in September 2020 for his role in Tonia’s murder and was sentenced to 19 years in prison with a stipulation that he served 10 years before parole consideration.

On Tuesday in the Home Circuit, where McDonald, 68, and Barnes, a 33-year-old St Mary tiler, are on trial for the murder of the 32-year-old businesswoman, Davis sought to poke holes into the police‘s identification of his client, Barnes.

The police witness told the court that he and other cops were on their way to Portland with Minott when he took them to an area in Annotto Bay and pointed out Barnes.

Asked why an official identification was never done, the witness said the identification was spontaneous.

Davis further questioned the corporal about what credibility he had given to Minott’s identification, but quickly abandoned the question after the prosecution objected and Justice Chester Stamp pointed out that credibility was not an issue for the police to determine.

Pressed further about why the police did not get a description of Barnes in the statement, the witness said the statement took a certain course and the information could not be extracted.

He, however, stressed that Minott, in his statement, mentioned the person whom he had subcontracted, whom he did not name but provided a location where he could be found.

“ You pointed out earlier that Minott said he knew him by face. Did he describe any features that he had?” Davis probed.

The witness replied that he did not know of any features that were provided.

QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY

Davis also sought to question the witness about Minott’s credibility after earlier asking him if he was referring to the same person who had admitted to the court that he lied in his statement.

“Are you aware that at least five statements were collected from him?” he asked, to which the corporal replied, “Not sure of the exact number.”

“Are you aware that nowhere in the statements did he mention the name Oscar Barnes?” Davies asked.

The witness, in reply, said he was not sure, but indicated that in the statement that he took, Minott said he did not know the man’s name and further that the statement took a certain direction and he did not get it out.

Further in the cross-examination, the witness said he could not provide any information on whether there was any DNA, clothing or footprint connecting Barnes to the murder.

“As far as you know, there is no supporting evidence connecting him to the murder,” Davis asked.

“I cannot agree with that,” the witness answered.

He said he could also not say whether anything was found at Barnes’ home linking him to the murder.

In the meantime, the lead investigator, a detective sergeant, testified that after Tonia’s death, he went to her husband’s business place and sympathised with him as, at the time, he was seen as a victim.

According to him, McDonald was very cooperative and tried to make the police comfortable by providing them with chairs. He said McDonald also gave the police a statement.

The investigator will continue his evidence today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com