Defence counsel Anthony Williams on Thursday sought to portray his client, murder accused Andre Ruddock, as a man who never confessed to the police to killing his church sister but was beaten, threatened, and put in fear for his life to give a caution statement.
Williams advanced the claims during continued cross-examination of a detective constable in Ruddock’s trial for the October 17, 2021, murder of Taneka Gardner at Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries.
Williams suggested that Ruddock had been assaulted, threatened with a firearm, and pressured into taking the blame for the killing.
The detective denied the allegations, insisting that he had neither assaulted nor threatened the accused.
The trial previously heard that on the day of the deadly incident, Ruddock reportedly told the officer, “A mi kill Taneka. Mi nah go tell yuh nuh lie,” when he visited the scene.
Ruddock later gave a video-recorded caution statement in which he said he was guilty of killing Gardner, took full responsibility for the act, and acknowledged that it was something he should not have done. He also maintained that he had cut Gardner’s throat on the instructions of his pastor.
However, during his cross-examination on Thursday, Williams said, “I am suggesting to you that Ruddock made no such confession statement to you.”
The witness quickly disagreed.
Williams further suggested that his client had not confessed in the presence of the detective constable and a woman corporal.
The witness, while acknowledging that he was unsure whether he had written in his statement that the corporal was present, insisted that she was there and that he had recorded her presence in his notes.
He was given his statement, recorded on November 10, 2021, to refresh his memory and admitted that he had not mentioned that Brown was present when the alleged confession was made.
Asked whether the corporal’s presence was important, the detective replied, “Not the most important.”
THREATENED
The lawyer also suggested that the detective had taken Ruddock to a meeting-room area at the church on the night of the deadly incident, kicked him, “puffed” him in the chest, and threatened to kill him there.
Williams suggested that the witness had said to his client, “How yuh suh lie, bwoy?” to which Ruddock responded, “Me nah lie. A your information wrong.”
“That is not true. I was not around the meeting room nor did I utter those words,” the detective said.
Williams also suggested that the witness had told Ruddock, after assaulting him, “Mi fi kill yuh ‘round yah, bwoy.”
Again, the witness denied being around the meeting area or making any such utterance.
He also denied taking out his service pistol to strike Ruddock and rejected allegations that soldiers had intervened after witnessing him assaulting the accused, saying, “Yuh cyaa beat up de man suh.”
According to Williams’ suggestion, the witness responded to the soldier by saying, “Dem p**** deh fi dead.”
The witness said he had never interacted with any soldier or uttered those words.
However, Williams said the soldier went further, saying, “But him nuh do nothing. You pick him up at de gate, but de man weh shoot afta we, yuh nuh do him nothing.”
The witness disagreed with the suggestion.
Williams further suggested that the witness had dragged Ruddock back to the bathroom area.
“Mr Ruddock is a very muscular and strong man. I disagree,” said the very composed witness, smiling.
The witness denied having any confrontation with Ruddock and said he had sought the accused’s cooperation rather than threatened him.
Williams continued to suggest that the detective had placed Ruddock in fear for his life and pressured him into signing the caution statement. The detective maintained that he had neither threatened nor assaulted the accused.
The lawyer also sought to establish that the process through which Ruddock’s statement was recorded was not properly conducted and that his client’s rights were not observed.
The detective acknowledged that he had left the room while Ruddock was allowed to speak with two justices of the peace, with the camera still recording.
“I did not see it as an issue at the time,” he said, adding that he had left before Ruddock was given the opportunity to speak with the justices of the peace and had not checked the camera.
Williams questioned how the detective could claim to have protected Ruddock’s rights while the camera remained on.
However, the witness said, “We wanted his rights to be protected, and we have video proof of that.”
The judge intervened when Williams questioned whether leaving the camera on breached the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s motto, noting that the motto was not a law or principle of law and urging counsel to move on.
Williams also suggested that the detective had promised to obtain a lawyer for Ruddock while pressuring him into giving a statement. The witness denied making any such promise.
Williams further put it to the witness that the alleged threats and physical assault on October 17, 2021, had left Ruddock intimidated and pressured into taking responsibility for the incident.
The detective rejected the suggestion, responding that he did not have the skill set or power of persuasion that Williams proposed.
During re-examination, the witness reiterated that he had never promised to obtain a lawyer for Ruddock.
The trial will continue on Tuesday.
tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com
