The trial into the brutal slaying of Hague hairdresser Bibi Saymar ended without a conviction, leaving behind lingering questions over just how glaring pieces of evidence could have been ignored or possibly forgotten.
A neighbour seeing one of the accused leaving the crime scene, inconsistences in the woman’s reputed husband’s story, a caution statement implicating both accused and the discovery of money in the getaway car, are all pieces of a puzzle which when fitted together tells of a well-executed murder for hire plan.
The freeing of the accused—one on appeal of his committal and the other just recently at a High Court trial—has raised niggling questions and those close to the case believe that the police had gathered enough evidence which would have ensured that the case ended differently. It would have been up to the prosecution to ensure that a well-fitted puzzle was presented to the judge and jury.
With the recent freeing of alleged `hit man’ Troy `Slim’ Greene it is unclear what course of action the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) plans to take if any.
It is believed that the Chief Justice’s decision to overturn the committal of overseas-based Guyanese Denny Persaud, the woman’s reputed husband, was a glaring indication of what the outcome of the pending trial would have been.
From all indications, a perfect case was prepared during the preliminary inquiry held at the Vreed -en-Hoop Magistrate’s Court but for some reason it was not repeated at the trial.
Saymar, 23, was found lying on her bedroom floor on May 29, 2010 with 11 stab wounds about her body. The murder occurred some time around 2 am and neighbours had reported hearing screams coming from the woman’s home, after which a man was seen leaving her apartment.
They informed the police, who responded promptly, and Saymar was taken to the Leonora Cottage Hospital, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
Persaud, Greene and a taxi driver were arrested a few hours after Saymar’s death. Persaud had reportedly been implicated by Greene, a then 22-year-old resident of Charlestown. Greene had claimed that the 55-year-old man had approached him to kill Saymar.
The taxi driver was released after the DPP recommended that no charges be laid against him.
At the end of the preliminary inquiry the duo was committed to stand trial in the High Court by Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs. However, in a surprise twist, Persaud moved to the High Court to challenge this.
His lawyer Vic Puran, who is now deceased, filed a motion to quash the case and Persaud was freed in 2012 after Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang ruled that the court lacked sufficient evidence to charge let alone commit him. This ruling came despite the fact that Greene had said otherwise in a caution statement.
Justice Chang, in his written ruling, ordered that Greene be granted a new preliminary inquiry. This was done and in 2013, he was committed to stand trial for a second time.
The trial came up in the High Court last week and at the end of all the testimony the jury after just two hours of deliberations returned with a not-guilty verdict. A caution statement was the only evidence that the prosecution had linking Greene to the killing but during the trial he denied the content saying that he was beaten and forced to confess to a crime he did not commit and had no knowledge of. Police had denied beating Greene as had been claimed.
A police witness, Sergeant Paul Wintz, had told the court that he took Greene’s caution statement, and had held a confrontation between Persaud and Greene at the Leonora Police Station about the murder.
The witness testified that Greene had said Persaud called him on his cellular phone and offered him US$1,500 to go to the couple’s home along with one “Shane Simon” to kill Saymar. In the disputed caution statement, Greene said he was picked up by Simon at Market Road, East La Penitence and taken to the couple’s home, where he stabbed Saymar several times about her body. The caution statement was admitted into evidence following a void dire.
Greene’s attorney Peter Hugh, during cross-examination, argued that prior to the caution statement, there was no evidence implicating Greene in the stabbing, injury and death of Saymar. Wintz had responded that a neighbour had given information.
Saymar’s relatives were absent during the trial and this newspaper tried unsuccessfully to contact them following the verdict.
Tragedy
According to a source this case is nothing short of a “tragedy” as there was more than enough information working against those fingered.
It was stated that there was an eyewitness who indicated that he had seen a man who he later learnt was Greene leaving Saymar’s house shortly after screams were heard. Though this was said, apparently no identification parade was held.
According to the source, there were lots of bits and pieces of information circulating but it was all “about how to tie the case together.”
The source said that one glaring piece of evidence was the landlady’s account of how often the couple fought and how Persaud had looked at the still living Saymar and walked from their apartment without offering help.
It is unclear if at any time during the PI if this piece of information was ever challenged. The relatives shortly after the murder had recounted to the media that the landlady who lived in the lower flat apartment of the house Saymar had begun renting months earlier had told them that when she gained access to her apartment Saymar was lying on her stomach with multiple wounds to her back.
Saymar at this point was still alive. Less than five minutes after the attack, Persaud, according to the woman, showed up. After entering the house, according to her, he walked to where Saymar lay bleeding on the floor, looked at her briefly and then left. Saymar was still breathing at this time.
This neighbour was one of two persons from the community who testified in court.
According to the source, domestic violence and constant fights should always be on the front burner as this would have pointed to the relationship the couple shared and could have been used as the foundation for the case.
The source said that the mere fact that the husband appeared unconcerned, left the scene and then reportedly ended up with some drinking buddies who turned out to be policemen was a clear indication that something was not right. The source, who was closely associated with the case, noted too that was also strange was that these same policemen would have been the ones responding to a report of the alleged crime and on their way to the scene their vehicle ended up in a ditch.
The source noted too that when the taxi driver was arrested he was found in possession of $200,000 which was believed to be payment to Greene for the crime he would have already committed. It was noted too that though the man had denied ever transporting Greene, a simple check at the toll booth and the cameras at the Demerara Harbour Bridge would have cleared up this.
“There was good evidence in this case. I do not know what went wrong. Justice should have been done. This was a tragedy,” the source pointed out before adding that the outcome of the case makes little sense.
Caution statement is never enough
A caution statement, particularly in a case like this, can never be enough, a police source said, explaining that an accused can always say that he admitted to a crime under duress or was beaten and brutalized.
“This is exactly what happened in this case…this sort of thing is happening too often,” the source said adding that prosecutors and police investigators alike must recognise that caution statements can never win a case.
The source said that in this particular matter, the evidence presented at the trial was too weak for a conviction. He said he could not comprehend how the prosecution could have comfortably presented its case with that alone. He said that based on his information there was no identification parade as highlighted by the defence counsel which immediately raises questions.
“You have a case where you have a neighbour who said that he saw a man… the next thing you are expected to do is to put your suspects in a lineup and let the eyewitness point him out,” the source said.
Defence counsel Peter Hugh argued that a forced caution statement was all the prosecution had to link his client to the case. Hugh suggested that no one ever positively identified Greene and Wintz had conceded under cross-examination that Greene was never positively identified by the neighbour who had testified.
The source, while pointing out that too many cases are being thrown out based on a caution statement, said that physical evidence is very important.
“The police are under pressure to solve crimes but it is not all about confession or just charging a man,” the source said. He agreed that for a committal all that is needed is minimal evidence but at the same time strong enough evidence for a trial is of importance.
The source compared this case to the trial for the murder of overseas-based Guyanese Motilall Singh. In this matter five persons including his three stepchildren had been charged. The source said that the number one accused was found not guilty and this would automatically exonerate the remaining persons who were said to be the co-conspirators.
Justice Navindra Singh, who presided over the case had told Bissoondial Mahadeo that he was shocked that the jury found him not guilty.
Months later the others were freed.
According to the source, just like in this case, once the killer or the mastermind gets off first the entire case will collapse thereafter. The source said he was convinced that with the freeing of Persaud, the case would have come to an end with all concerned walking free.
