BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – AN irate mother is calling for a judicial inquiry into what she claimed to be the wrongful arrest for murder, due to manufactured evidence by a member of the St. Kitts and Nevis Defence Force (SKNDF), that could lead to her son’s execution or life imprisonment.
Davida Phipps of West Bourne Ghaut, Basseterre visited this media house today (July 3) and stated that her 20-year-old son, Erastus ‘Ras’ Laville, was remanded to Her Majesty’s Prison, charged with the July 8, 2011 murder of Wendell ‘Dog’ Wilkinson.
She noted that a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) was held on Friday (June 29) and the magistrate had advanced the case to the September 2012 Criminal Assizes at the Basseterre High Court.
Recounting what transpired on that day (July 8, 2011), Phipps said that she was on her way home from work when she observed a speeding police vehicle heading in the direction of The Village.
“On the day in question, I was on my way home from work but had stopped at the top of Thibou Avenue after I saw a speeding police vehicle going towards The Village. I then asked someone what it was all about and they told me that someone named Dog was shot in Union Street and was taken to the hospital.
“I then left for my home and one of my sons opened the door for me. Ras was asleep and I woke him up and told him that a boy named Dog was shot in the vicinity of Damian Weekes shop. I later learnt that Dog had died in the hospital.
“About three months after Dog’s death while my son was at the home of one of my friends, police arrested him on suspicion of murder. And after being in the lockups for 72 hours they charged him with the offence.”
Phipps maintains that her son is innocent of the crime and is a victim of an unscrupulous soldier who was coerced into fabricating evidence against him by a “big man” in the SKNDF.
“I can swear on the Holy Bible that my son is innocent. Apart from me finding him at home shortly after the shooting incident, a very close member of the soldier’s family accompanied me to my son’s lawyer and produced a tape upon which he had recorded a conversation he had with the soldier.
“On this tape, from which we have made a number of copies, the soldier confessed that he was told by a big man in the army to say that my son was involved in the death of Dog. The contents of the tape were presented to the magistrate at the Preliminary Inquiry but she still allowed the case to go forward to the High Court.
“After speaking with my son’s lawyer, I learnt that the magistrate is not to be blamed. The blame rests with the DPP’s Office. They should have carried out a thorough investigation along with the police. Instead, they have allowed the unscrupulous soldier to bring the army, the police and the DPP’s Office into disrepute.”
Phipps claimed that during the PI, the soldier told the magistrate that he saw when Laville and Darnel Webster “shot-up Dog for about 15 to 20 minutes”.
“He also told the court that after the shooting he ran after my son to catch him while Gavin White ran after Darnel Webster. This is what I term a false statement, because it is a known fact that Darnel Webster was shot and killed on July 6, 2008. Therefore, how could he make a statement like that? Maybe he was confused by the lies he was made to tell or he was seeing a ghost. What bothers me at this time is where will the buck stop in this matter?”
Following Phipps’ visit, SKNVibes contacted a member of the legal fraternity and sought his advice based upon what she claimed transpired.
The Barrister-at-Law advised this media house to research the “Turnbull Guidelines on the subject of Identification of Evidence and Warnings”.
The advice was taken and according to the Dictionary of legal terms – T, “Evidence of visual identification is notoriously unreliable, yet favoured by juries. When identification is in issue, the judge will issue a ‘Turnbull warning’ (from R v Turnbull [1977] QBD), a warning to the jury about relying on identification and the reasons for the warning.
“Firstly, the warning will refer to the possibility that even a convincing witness(es) may be mistaken.
“Secondly the jury should test the evidence by examining such things as the circumstances in which the identification came to be made:
• How long did the witness have the accused under observation?
• At what distance?
• In what light?
• Was the observation impeded in any way, as for example, by passing traffic or a press of people?
• Had the witness ever seen the accused before?
• How often?
• If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused?
• How long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police?
• Was there any material discrepancy between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen by them and his actual appearance?
• Material discrepancies should be supplied to the defendant. Finally, recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger but they should be reminded that mistakes can occur.”
Twenty-two-year-old Wendell ‘Dog’ Wilkinson of Cardin Avenue was shot on the morning of July 8, 2011 in the vicinity of a shop in Union Street and succumbed to his injuries while undergoing emergency medical treatment at the JNF General Hospital.
A police press release in mid-October 2011 stated that members of the Delta Squad had arrested one person on suspicion of killing Wilkinson, and another person is being sought in connection with the same incident.
The release had also stated that “the Commissioner of Police wishes to thank the public for their tremendous support to the police” in the arrest of the person, who SKNVibes later learnt was Laville.
