Latest update April 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
May 13, 2017 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News
By Rehanna Ramsay
A forensic video analyst attached to the Criminal Investigations Department, (CID) at Eve Leary disclosed that ranks involved in the investigations into the murder of Pike Street businessman Ashok Raghoo made no efforts to preserve
the video recordings in relation to the crime, which was committed on August 18, 2014. Raghoo was shot and killed following a robbery which occurred at Vlissengen Road in the vicinity of the Botanical Gardens. Travis McDougall is indicted for the murder. Justice Navindra Singh is presiding over his trial at the Georgetown High Court.
Detective Sergeant Junior Blair was summoned to court on Thursday pursuant to a request by Justice Singh for the court to view the footage which was allegedly used in the capture of suspects involved in the crime.
In his evidence, Sergeant Blair explained that in August 2014, he viewed footage from a CCTV camera located in the vicinity of Rubis Gas Station at Vlissengen Road and Eping Avenue, upon instructions of Police investigators.
Blair stated, however, that he was unable to retrieve the footage to present to the court because the monitoring system could only hold information for eight months.
Under cross-examination by Defence Counsel Nigel Hughes, Sergeant Blair told the court that a request has to be made by investigating ranks for the images captured to be stored; the download and storage of information can only be done at the Central Intelligence Unit, (CIU) which is located at Castellani House.
The request has to be forwarded from Eve Leary to Castellani House, he said.
But in the case of Raghoo’s murder, that was not done.
The witness explained that the video monitoring room at CID is instrumental in keeping watch of vehicular traffic around Georgetown and its environs—-in case of an accident, the information from the footage aids with investigations into matters of traffic infractions as well as more serious crimes.
Pressed by the Attorney about the footage as it regards the investigations into Raghoo‘s murder, Detective Blair asserted that while murder is a serious crime and the investigations should be treated as such, no request was made by the ranks probing the murder to store the footage/images in relation to the murder which were captured by the CCTV camera.
The witness also disclosed that that the force’s capability to store information gather is also limited—— the images are only stored on disc.
“We only utilise CD-ROM….No flash drives,” he revealed. The officer nevertheless agreed that it would have been difficult to clearly see the persons on tape due to the distance between the Rubis Gas Station at Eping Avenue and the area where the murder was allegedly committed.
Blair also agreed to Hughes’ suggestions that all that could be possibly seen are “shapes of the people.”
The witness also assented to the suggestion that the images would not be clear enough to identity the vehicles, licence plate numbers nor any person, owing to the distance.”
Earlier in the trial, Police Corporal Derwin Eastman faced a series of questions in relation to the investigations into the murder of Raghoo.
Eastman gave the court an account of viewing a surveillance tape in which the suspect was wearing a purple helmet and riding a motorcycle.
Under questioning by State Prosecutor Tuanna Hardy, the policeman also told the court that when the accused was detained, the purple helmet was also found in his possession.
But when faced with questions from Defence Counsel Hughes, the policeman explained that the footage was taken from a surveillance camera at Rubis Service station —-about 400 yards away from the scene of the shooting.
Hughes had suggested to the policeman that the distance between where the camera was located and the crime scene would make it difficult to see anything in that vicinity.
Eastman maintained that he viewed the footage from the Rubis station CCTV.
Questioned further about the details of the surveillance tape, the policeman responded with a series of “I can’t recall sir.”
His answers prompted the Judge to make an order for a copy of the footage to be presented to the Court.
Ashok Raghoo of Pike Street, Campbellville, was shot in the chest, while his wife, Shyrazadi Raghoo, was shot in the thigh by two gunmen on a motorcycle, who cornered them at the Vlissengen and Regent Road traffic light.
The robbers escaped with a bag containing an undisclosed sum of cash and the slain man’s licensed handgun.
A Post mortem examination by Dr Nehaul Singh revealed that the victim died as a result of perforation of the lungs due to gunshot injury.
Prosecution witness Dirk Bess, testifying on Thursday, recalled that the couple’s car had stopped parallel to his vehicle when the occupants were attacked. A scuffle had ensued between a gunman and the driver and then there was an explosion. The witness recounted that there was a second explosion before the gunman escaped with something in his hand.
Bess told the court that the man with the gun was “thin built and he ran and jumped on to the back of a motorcycle with another male who had a little more size.”
The witness said that he waited until the men rode off before he could get out of his car and render assistance to the injured persons. He said however that he could not adequately identify the shooters.
ExxonM now warning us of a potential Tsunami and your leaders busy approving oil project
Apr 29, 2024
(SportsMax) – In yet another stunning performance, West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews led her team to a commanding seven-wicket victory over Pakistan Women, securing a 2-0 lead in...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News – At his last press conference, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo raised doubts about... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]