[ad_1]
Britney Clarke on Monday pushed back against claims that she lied, insisting there was no gunman at her parents’ home the day her father, Keith Clarke, was killed, and that members of the security forces shot him.
A week after her first appearance to give evidence, Britney was cross-examined at Family Circuit Court in downtown Kingston by barrister Valerie Neita-Robertson, barrister Peter Champagnie and defence lawyer Linton Gordon.
Three soldiers — Corporals Greg Tinlin, Odell Buckley and Private First Class Arnold Henry — have been charged in Clark’s death and are currently on trial for his murder.
When questioned about photographic evidence showing red-striped beer bottles scattered around the house – eight of them on the coffee table, one on the steps and others in front of the fence outside – Britney insisted Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, who was wanted for extradition to the United States at the time, was not home on the night of the fatal raid.
After showing her the evidence on the screen, Champagne asked: “Do you still maintain that those beer bottles were not there on the day you left the house (after Keith Clark was killed)?”
Britney responded, “Yes sir, I do. Do I have a chance to explain now?”
Champagnie then asked, “Are you telling the truth when you say that?” She replied, “Yes, Mr. Champagnie. Yes, sir.”
“You’re lying. You’re lying,” the lawyer said, insisting the witness didn’t need to explain.
“Oh, you don’t want me to explain? All right,” she said.
Champagne then asked her to count the number of bottles of wine on the coffee table in the photographic evidence. She incorrectly answered four, when the photo showed eight. This number led the defense attorney to speculate that perhaps there were seven or eight people around the table.
“Did you sign a document stating that the deceased – your father – never hosted Christopher Coke and/or seven or eight heavily armed gunmen?” Champagne asked.
“No, that’s ridiculous. I don’t know what you’re reading and there is no such thing. It’s far from the truth,” Britney responded.
Ridiculous accusations
He then asked the court clerk to give the witness a document with her signature.
She didn’t give a straight “yes” or “no” answer but said his suggestion was far from the truth.
“After reading this document, do you still think this is ridiculous? Yes or no? It’s simple,” Champagne insisted.
The witness grunted and then said, “I’m talking,” to which Champagnie interjected, “I can’t hear you.”
“The way it was worded,” Britney continued, but was interrupted by Champigny, “No, it’s not that, ma’am. It’s not that! It’s not that! It’s a very simple question, Ms. Britney Clark, do you still think it’s ridiculous?”
“Yes, the accusation is ridiculous. Yes, the accusations you’ve made against my family are ridiculous… I’m telling the truth, the whole truth. God has blessed me to be here today to tell the truth about what happened, and I’m here to do what needs to be done, to tell the truth,” she responded.
The witness was again asked where exactly her father was when he was shot, whether in the master bathroom or in the bedroom. She said she was in the bedroom and witnessed her father being shot by members of the security forces.
As he continued his cross-examination, Champagne asked Britney if she saw her father holding a gun permit during the May 2010 incident, to which Britney responded yes. He then asked Britney if she asked her mother to go back into the bathroom and close the door; she agreed but took a while to articulate where she saw him holding a gun before then and after her father instructed her mother.
Britney also admitted that she went into the bathroom with her mother and closed the door, but during subsequent questioning, she said she saw her father being shot.
Henry’s defense attorney, Linton Gordon, continued cross-examination, suggesting to the witness that her father was shot somewhere else in the room she described.
Gordon showed another photo of the master bedroom and asked where she was when her father was shot and if she was actually in the room or bathroom when she said security forces stormed the room.
“He was at the window, coming down from the top of the wardrobe … he was facing the window and walking down,” she said.
“I want to tell you, ma’am, your father was not at the window when he was shot. I further tell you that because he was not shot at the window, the window was not broken. I want to tell you that you never saw where your father was when he was shot,” Gordon responded.
“Yes, sir. He was at the window when he was shot. I saw him at the window…I did see it, sir. Unfortunately, I was forced to witness it. You weren’t there, so you couldn’t see it,” the witness countered.
During cross-examination, the court also produced as evidence a photograph of a bomb and burn marks on the wall, which had exploded in the room before the security forces entered and affected all those who were in the room at that time.
The defense also alleged that at the time of the incident, the house had no front door and no thick wall separating it from the road, and if the gunman wanted to escape easily, he could easily escape from the road.
However, the defense argued that Coker and a group of gunmen showed up in the basement of Clark’s home that night and opened fire on security forces before fleeing into the bushes behind the house.
Clark, then a 63-year-old chartered accountant, was shot 21 times in a home attack on May 27, 2010.
Neita-Robertson represented Tingling, while Champagnie represented Buckley and Gordon represented Henry.
[ad_2]
Source link
