– Defence counsel asks witness whether he was stupid or pretending to be ‘stupidy’
THE ‘voir dire’ in the West Bank Demerara murder trial was suspended yesterday to permit evidence to be taken in the substantive trial.

The voir dire (a trial within a trial) will be continued at a later date.

Prosecution witness, Harricharran Rampersaud, who was called to testify, stated in his evidence-in-chief that on the night in question (February 2,  2008) , he had given Farzan Khan (now deceased) a drop in his car to purchase a coke, when Khan was fatally injured.

In his evidence-in-chief given at the last session on Tuesday, after the suspension of the smaller trial, Rampersaud testified that he came out of the car after the incident but did not see anything because the place was dark. 

He also said that he could not see further than ‘a foot away’.

But under cross-examination yesterday, he gave ‘a twisted account of events’ that caused defence counsel, Vic Puran, to find out from him whether he was stupid  or pretending to be ‘stupidy’.

His evidence-in-Chief before Prosecutors, Miss Latchmie Rahamat – in association with Mrs. Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, did not say much.

Giving conflicting versions of  parts of his evidence-in-chief, in the first instance,  the witness under cross-examination said there was a lamp pole at the scene on which was attached  a flood light that was shining on the back of his car, when it had stopped to permit Khan (deceased) to purchase a coke.

He said the incident happened near to this pole with the light looking like a car light; it was either square or round.

In answer to further questions, as to how he knew that the light was shining on the back of his Toyota car, the  witness said he made the observation after coming out of his vehicle.

The witness also admitted that he had realized that the presence of light on the scene was of importance in a matter of this nature.

Asked why he did not express the fact of light to the prosecutors at the Preliminary Inquiry or the prosecutors in the High Court when he testified on Tuesday, the witness explained:  “I only thought about the Light on Tuesday night.”

This prompted the Defence counsel to enquire:  “Or is it – you made that up after hearing that two other witnesses had spoken about light ?”
This witness did not answer this query.

At this stage, Defence counsel enquired from the witness why he did not  reveal  his knowledge to the P.I. , to which the witness explained: “I was confused.”

“On the resumption I shall find out from you who confused you ,” Defence Counsel Puran told the witness.
The trial is continuing.