While murder accused Dennis Williams said he was at his father’s Georgetown home at the time of the 2008 massacre at Bartica, the older man, called as a witness to corroborate the alibi, gave conflicting testimony on his son’s whereabouts at the time of the killings as he could not remember the date.
Dennis, called “Anaconda,” has been charged along with Mark Royden Williams, called “Smallie” and Roger Simon, called “Goat Man,” for the massacre of 12 men, including three police officers on February 17, 2008.
Dennis, who opted to lead his defence in sworn testimony, has maintained that he was never at Bartica on the day, or time of the attack and knows nothing about it.
Professing his innocence, the accused told the court that at the time of the killings, he was at his father’s 63 Barr Street, Albouystown, Georgetown home, drinking and talking with family and friends.
“I have no idea about the killings. I was at my father that night,” Dennis told Prosecutor Stacy Goodings under cross-examination.
The accused disagreed with the prosecutor’s suggestion that he was lying about being at his father’s home, since he wanted to avoid the consequences of his actions for the night in question.
After completing his testimony, Dennis called his father, Grantly, as a witness to corroborate his alibi. However, Grantly appeared throughout his testimony to be confused about the date in question.
Asked by defence attorney Saphier Hussain if he recalled February 17, 2008, the senior Williams said he did and went on to explain that on that day, he had received a call from his wife who told him something. As a result, he said he headed home, and thereafter went to the police station, in a bid to ascertain “what was the position with my son.” He said that the police did not allow him to see his son, and refused to tell him what the problem was.
The witness had stated that from the time his son was placed in police custody to present, he has not been released.
But Dennis himself had testified to being arrested for the Bartica killings in November of 2009.
Moments later, as he continued to give his evidence, Grantly said that on the night in question, sometime from 8 to 10, his son was at home with him. He too said that they had been drinking and gaffing with family and friends.
Asked by Goodings, under cross-examination, whether he had ever given a statement to police stating that his son was at home with him at the time of the massacre, the witness said he did not.
Further asked if he ever testified during the preliminary inquiry (PI) regarding his son’s whereabouts at the time of the killings, Grantly again said no.
Asked whether apart from the police, he told “anyone else” about his son being at home with him on the night in question, Grantly said no
Asked if his son was with him on the night in question, the witness told Goodings, “I can’t remember what date he was with me.” The prosecutor then pointed out to Grantly, that she hadn’t ask for a date, but only whether his son was with him on the night in question.
To verify what he had moments earlier testified, Justice Roxane George SC, who is conducting the trial, read to Grantly, who was staring up at the ceiling, that he had in fact said in his evidence-in-chief that his son was at home with him on the night in question.
He, thereafter, said he remembered.
When asked if he had come to testify to help his son, the witness told Goodings yes. Asked if he wanted to see his son come out of prison, his response was the same.
Contempt
During state counsel’s cross-examination of the witness, Hussain objected to him being asked if he had told his story regarding his son’s whereabouts during the PI. Justice George however, after recording his objection, overruled his objection and allowed the question.
Hussain, who could be seen reading from a document, continued to argue that the question should not be put to the witness.
When asked to cite the authority from which he was reading and what it said, Hussain declared that it was a document on the law as practised in Canada. A visibly frustrated Justice George, who had had countless previous reasons to overrule Hussain’s objections during the trial, pointed out that the court was of the impression that the law on which counsel was relying was specific to Guyana.
After listening to Hussain read from his source, Justice George noted that in any event counsel was misreading, misinterpreting and misapplying the law to the issue.
Hussain, who continued to vociferously argue, was sternly warned by an irate Justice George, who told him to sit and reminded him that she had already ruled on the issue.
In overruling the objection, the judge noted that it had no merit as she has had to do on numerous previous occasions regarding questions and objections Hussain would have had.
It was at this point, that Hussain, who continued to argue with the judge, declared his intention to withdraw his representation of Dennis Williams and asked the court to leave.
Justice George, however, ordered Hussain to remain and continue his representation of the accused, saying that it would be unfair for Williams to have to retain another attorney at this stage of the trial, which is almost at its end.
Before finally taking his seat, as he muttered to himself, the judge told counsel that he was bordering on contempt charges.
Hussain, who has been late for every hearing since the commencement of the trial some three months ago, was held in contempt and fined $10,000 for his late arrival at court earlier yesterday morning.
Despite repeated warnings about his tardiness, Hussain showed up late for the hearing, delaying the commencement of proceedings by half an hour. The court was unable to commence in his absence, as it was his client who was on the stand.
Justice George warned counsel that for every day he continues to be late for court, he will be fined $10,000 until the matter ends.
Hussain had failed repeatedly in his bid to seek clarification from Grantly about the reason he had given conflicting testimony regarding where his son was on the night in question.
Each time Hussain tried to ask the question, Prosecutor Goodings objected, and the judge ruled that his questions were “leading” the witness. Before eventually retiring to his seat, Hussain asked Grantly directly for the reason for his conflicting testimony regarding where his son was on the night in question. The witness then responded, “I am giving conflicting dates, ’cause the time so long, and I can’t remember.”
Before adjourning the day’s proceedings, Justice George, in issuing the usual admonition to the jurors to not discuss the case among themselves or with anyone until it has been formally handed over to them for deliberations, went on to tell them to be very careful. The trial judge, in a firm caution, told jurors to be careful to whom they speak and with whom they associate even as the matter now nears its end, while noting that it would be a waste of time and resources should the matter have to be aborted owing to anything improper.
The trial judge cautioned each juror that whatever verdict they will arrive at as a jury, has to be their sole decision.
The case continues this morning at the High Court in Georgetown, where Dennis is expected to call his remaining witnesses. Thereafter, Simon is expected to lead his defence.
The charges against the accused are that they murdered Lance Corporal Zaheer Zakir, and Constables Shane Fredericks and Ron Osborne, as well as Edwin Gilkes, Dexter Adrian, Irving Ferreira, Deonarine Singh, Ronald Gomes, Ashraf Khan, Abdool Yasseen, Errol Thomas, and Baldeo Singh.
