State closes case in Neesa Gopaul murder trial –defence to begin submissions on Monday
‘BRUTALLY KILLED’: Neesa Gopaul
‘BRUTALLY KILLED’: Neesa Gopaul

THE state yesterday closed its case in the death of former Queen’s College Student Neesa Gopaul after calling its final witness to testify.Neesa’s mother, Bibi Shareema Gopaul also known as “Naree,” and step-father, Jarvis “Barry’”Small, are on trial at the High Court in Georgetown for Neesa’s gruesome murder, which allegedly took place sometime between September 24 and October 2, 2010.

A total of 26 witnesses have testified for the state,whose case is that on October 2, 2010, the headless remains of a female were discovered at a location along the Soesdkye-Linden Highway, tucked inside a suitcase that was partially submerged in a creek. A rope was wrapped around the suitcase and dumbbells were attached at one end, apparently in an effort to keep the body under water.
In addition to the body, a passport bearing the name Neesa Lalita Gopaul was also found. The teenager was reported missing just days before the discovery was made.
Subsequent to the discovery of the body, Bibi Gopaul and her ex-paramour, Small, were arrested and charged for the murder.

The case is being presented by State Prosecutors Diana Kaulesar, Mercedes Thompson and Stacy Gooding.

Jarvis “Barry” Small is being represented by attorneys-at-law Glen Hanoman, Bernard Dos Santos SC, Lyndon Amsterdam and Zanna Frank, while Bibi Gopaul is being represented by Attorney-at-Law, George Thomas.

On February 26 last, former cellmate Simone De Nobrega, also known as Simone King took the stand before Justice Navindra Singh and a mixed jury and revealed what she was told by accused Gopaul, concerning the death of her daughter.
Cross- examination by Defence

The cross- examination of witness Simone Diane De Nobrega continued yesterday,by defence counsel George Thomas.
He suggested to the witness that she was making up her story and she responded in the negative.
Counsel further suggested to De Nobrega, that it was she who had invited Bibi Gopaul to her cell as opposed to the accused being placed by the police . She responded yes.
In addition, he put the question to the witness that she had invited the accused because she wanted to discuss things with her. De Nobrega replied, “She was my friend.”
He asked when the witness was first bailed, and she responded that she was granted bail, but remained in the lock -ups until her mother had accumulated the money to post surety.
He further questioned if the witness and Gopaul had a problem with each other at the East La Penitence lock- ups. De Nobrega replied, “Yes, after she found out that I was talking to the police.”
Thomas asked the witness: “When you first met the number two accused, you enquired about her financial status? And asked her to assist you with your bail? De Nobrega swiftly responded, “That is not true,” “my mother bailed me.”
Thomas then suggested that the problem between Gopaul and De Nobrega had occurred before she went to the police; the witness however disagreed.
Another suggestion by the defence was that the witness has no proof that Bibi Gopaul had said those things to her. She answered, “She said these things to me.”
Another question proposed by the defence, was that the number two accused never told the witness that Emerald Tower was Neesa’s favourite place. The witness responded, yes she told me that is Neesa’s favourite place.
Thomas suggested to De Nobrega that during the time at East La Penitence, she was always calling the accused to go close to her. She quickly answered, “No, that’s not true we were friends.”
Subsequently, he questioned, “How many millions you earned from your fraud charges?” she responded, “I cannot answer that.”
She further stated that, “My charges were pen to paper not gruesome as murder. I did not murder my children.”

Re- examination by the Prosecution
The prosecutor then question why the witness was fearful for life and not turn herself in for prison? De Nobrega responded boldly, “I knew that I would have to go to Berbice prison and that I would have been in the same institution with the number two accused.”
The witness related that, at that time she felt her life was threatened because the number two accused had razor blades place in her food. She added that there are records to prove that in the New Amsterdam prison.

Another cross- examination by defence
The defence asked when the razor blade situation took place. De Nobrega said, she went back to prison because she had missed her court date which resulted in an arrest warrant.
Counsel questioned whether Gopaul and the witness were in the same dormitory. Her answer to the question was, not in the same dormitory, but they shared the same recreational area.
The final witness called by the state was Police Denise Griffith, stationed at the Alberttown Police station. During the year 2010, the witness related that she was the Assistant Superintendent stationed at the East La Penitence Police Station, as the officer in charge.
The police witness recounted that on October 4, 2010, Gopaul, whom she identified as the female prisoner sitting in the dock, was taken to the East La Penitence lock- ups, pending an investigation of a murder allegation.
On October 5, 2010, Simone King also known as Simone De Nobrega was taken to the said station after being brought from the New Amsterdam Prison, as a remanded prisoner on a series of fraud- related charges, said the witness.
Denise Griffith described for the court how the East La Penitence lock- ups were situated. She said it has three lock-ups, situated on the northern side of the first half of the bottom flat. The witness said each has its individual door and the first and third cells are used to house female adult prisoners.
Denise Griffith recalled that on October 10, 2010, after 20:00hrs, she was at her residence in La Grange on the West Bank of Demerara, when she received a call on her cellular phone from Mr. George Vyphuis, retired assistant commissioner, who told her something.
The witness said that Gopaul left the East La Penitence lock- ups on October 11, 2010, for the New Amsterdam prison and returned on October 15, 2010. On Gopaul’s return at the East La Penitence lock- ups, the witness recollected that she went to cell number one, which at that time was housing De Nobrega. She added that only accused Gopaul and De Nobrega were occupying the cell at that time. Both of them were in the facility until, October 20, 2010 and Gopaul left for the New Amsterdam prison.
During his cross-examination, Attorney-at-Law Thomas, asked the witness, if it came to her attention that De Nobrega said something about the number two accused (Gopaul), and she responded yes.
Another question raised by the defence was, from October 20, 2010 to June 7, De Nobrega was in custody at the East La Penitence lock- ups, but when Gopaul was brought to Georgetown, De Nobrega was taken to the Beterverwagting lock- ups.
The court was adjourned and the defence will make their legal submissions on Monday, March 2.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.