Senior cop concedes mistakes

(CNS): The senior investigating officer on the enquiry into the murder of Brian Rankine told the court on the sixth day of William Martinez-McLaughlin’s trial that mistakes had been made during the investigation. On a day that took some unusual turns, including one police officer becoming ill in the witness box, defence counsel accused an officer of conspiring with the principal witness and suggested others lied about a missing machete. Peter Kennett (left) also revealed that he was concerned about a number of things that had appeared to go wrong with the evidence — from the failure to analyse the defendant’s clothing to missing video tape.

The first witness of the day (14 July), however, was RCIPS officer, Detective Sergeant Joseph Wright, who played a key role in the interviewing of the principal witness, Jason Hinds.  He told the court that Hinds had reportedly asked to speak with him — rather than a lawyer who was made available to him — to reveal his account of the night of 16 May 2008, when Hinds alleges that he witnessed Martinez-McLaughlin murder Brian Rankine but that he himself had not played a part in the killing.

Solicitor General Cheryll Richards took Sgt Wright through his statement regarding the night of the murder, the discovery of the van that had been witnessed at the scene, the subsequent arrest of Hinds and McLaughlin, searches at Hinds home, where he had hidden his clothes, and finally where Hinds said McLaughlin had disposed of items related to the crime. She asked Sgt Wright about the account given to him by Hinds about the night in question and how he had been the first person to hear Hinds’ account of events.

Wright told the court how he had received a call from the custody officer saying that Hinds had asked to see him, but he was not sure why and how he had then gone to the cells and listened to Hinds’ account, taken notes and then asked him to sign them.

Following Richards’ examination of his witness testimony, defence lead counsel Mark Tomassi grilled Sgt Wright on how well he knew Hinds from Jamaica and why exactly it was him that Hinds had wanted to see privately at the police station rather than a lawyer. He queried why Sgt Wrights’ statement regarding the events was not dated and why he had not tape recorded his first private interview with Hinds. Sgt Wright said that only around five officers in the RCIPS were trained to do taped interviews and he was not one of them.

Although Sgt Wright acknowledged a vague acquaintance with Hinds, he denied any significant connection with him or his family other than having “seen him on the road” in Spanish Town where they were both from in Jamaica. Despite Tomassi’s accusations that Hinds had recognised Sgt Wright as a friendly face, Sgt Wright persistently denied any serious knowledge of the principal witness and said he did not know why Hinds had asked for him in particular and they did not discuss knowing each other from their native country.

Sgt Wright also denied ever seeing an ice pick, which Hinds had said was taken from the van, or the machete at anytime during the investigation.

Tomassi accused Sgt Wright or “soft soaping” Hinds, of giving him special treatment and making a deal with him and helping him to concoct a story to ensure he would get away with murder. The defence lawyer said that his claims of merely seeing Hinds on the road in Jamaica were “poppycock” and that Sgt Wright was in fact Hinds’ friend. Sgt Wright vehemently denied the allegation and said he had done nothing wrong or inappropriate in his handling of Hinds.

The next witness to take the stand was the deputy senior investigating officer, Lauriston Burton, who was the officer that had taken the machete into custody during the search of Hinds’ house the night after the murder. However, Burton became visibly ill during his testimony and was allowed to stand down, but not before he told that court how he had recovered the machete from Hinds’ house and shown it to scenes of crime officers, who he said had dismissed it because there was no blood on it (though both officers have denied seeing the machete at any time during earlier testimony).

Following a short adjournment, the court head that Burton was suffering from exhaustion and would not be able to continue with his witness statement that day, and as a result the court called Senior investigating Officer Chief Inspector Peter Kennett to the stand.

Richards asked Kennett about the investigation and the questions that had been raised during the trial about the evidence which was in police custody and some of the apparent mistakes that had been made. Kennett admitted that it had recently been brought to his attention that there had been some problems with the continuity of evidence.

When Tomassi began his cross examination he asked Kennett exactly what was going on. He pointed to the missing video tape evidence, the missing knife, the machete that was seized but did not get sent for analysis and the fact that the clothes McLaughlin was wearing when he was bought to George Town Police Station were not sent for testing either. He told Kennett that his officers were offering conflicting testimony to the court over both the machete and the knife and asked him why — a question Kennett said he could not answer.

Kennett said he took full responsibility for what had gone wrong but could not explain why the expected protocol had not been followed. He said that was the reason why he had what he described as something of a “dickey fit” when he realized on the morning of the trial that McLaughlin’s clothes had never made it to the lab. He admitted not knowing that the machete was missing until Burton told him about that as well on the first morning of the trial.

He acknowledged it was a mistake that the machete had not been sent for analysis, but when questioned about the decision to accept Hinds’ account and charge McLaughlin for the murder, Kennett said it was nothing to do with being duped but that there was compelling evidence as to why that had happened.

Kennett noted that Hinds’ clothes, although they had some blood the stains, were not consistent with someone who had committed this murder where there was clearly an awful lot of blood. He said he never closed his mind during the investigation but when Hinds began to relate his story he was being open and honest with officers and gave a full and detailed account of the night of the murder.

Kennett stood by both officers Wright and Burton and denied that they would ever be complicit in attempting to convict an innocent man and let a guilty man go free. “That would be abhorrent to them,” Kennet told the court.