Determine admissibility of caution statement by accused
JUSTICE Roxanne George, presiding judge in the Providence murder trial, is conducting a voir dire (a trial within a trial)to determine the admissibility of a caution statement relating to the crime and said to be made by the accused Nigel Forrester.
Leading Prosecutor, Miss Rhondel Weever, with Miss Latchmie Rahamat, was attempting to tender the caution statement in evidence through Detective Constable Robert Henry, when defence counsel, Mr. Basil Williams, objected, resulting in the judge holding a voir dire to determine the issue.
Defence Counsel Williams is objecting to the tendering of the statement on the grounds that it was not obtained freely and voluntarily, but by oppression and violence.
The Prosecution has set out to prove that on the night of November 24, 2005, the accused, Nigel Forrester, who was a part-time worker with businessman Mahadeo Budhai, caused the death of his former employer, who was found dead by strangulation.
But the accused, who is said to have been one of three persons seen at Budhai’s rum shop and grocery that night, has pleaded not guilty.
One of the persons held by the police as a suspect following the murder of Budhai, was his wife, Mrs. E. Budhai, of Providence, East Bank, Demerara.
Under cross-examination, prosecution witnesses have given different accounts of what transpired on the night of November 24, 2005.
Mrs. Budhai, who was arrested and held as a suspect by the police, is now one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution.
She told Williams that she was held as a suspect for the murder of her husband, but denied that she had anything to do with his death.  She claimed that the accused was a helper at the shop and had a good relationship with herself and husband.
Questioned by the jury yesterday, Mrs. Budhai said that she did not see the accused on the night of November 24, 2005.
On the resumption yesterday morning, Azam Mohamed, a mason of 108 Providence, testified that he knew Mahadeo Budhai, who owned a rum shop and grocery at Providence.  He also knows the accused Nigel Forrester, also of Providence.
Witness Mohamed said about 8 p.m. on Thursday, November, 24th, 2005, he and fellow mason Michael Jagdeo visited Budhai’s rum shop for a drink.   While they were  gaffing, about 8 .15 that night, the accused turned up, pushed in half of the shop door, ordered some nuts  and asked them if they did not notice that Budhai wanted to close the shop.
They were drinking from a quarter bottle of rum.  So they poured the rum into a bottle with soft drinks and left the shop to complete their drink elsewhere.
According to witness, about half an hour after they had left, they were drinking when they heard a drunk man saying something.  Witness said that he and Jagdeo went to the back yard where they saw Budhai’s body.
Under cross-examination, witness said that when he and Jagdeo arrived at Budhai’s shop that night, they saw the accused at their table.
Further questioned, witness said that when he said the table, he meant the floor and pointed out that they did not have any table or chair that night and had to sit down on the floor.
Witness went on to say that two weeks after the murder, the Police, who had been accusing him of being among the last persons in the shop that night and that he ought to know something about Budhai’s murder, suddenly picked up  him and Jagdeo and took them to Providence Police station where, separately, they were subjected to  questioning.
The witness said that after he insisted that Forrester was present at Budhai’s home,he was allowed to go home. He learnt that Forrester was subsequently charged, but according to witness, he did not see Forrester at the station. There was no confrontation between himself and Forester, witness answered.
The hearing is continuing.