.jpg)
Justice Singh said the case had been hinged on circumstantial evidence which contained a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies that rendered the depositions unacceptable.
Moreover, he had to concur with the defence submission that discrepancies and inconsistencies existed even in the court before the jury.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, he had to concede to the defence submission that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused.
There was no evidential link between the accused and the death of the deceased, Justice Singh said when he upheld the no-case submission and directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty in favour of the accused.
In dismissing the case against the accused, Justice Singh told her that, because of the circumstances, she had been released; but, he added, “Only you and your God know what had occurred. You are free to go.”
One of the first acts of the freed accused was to commend her lawyers for excellent representation, even as she attributed her freedom to an act of God. Then, once outside of the courtroom, she told members of the press that she had not committed any offence, and was therefore looking forward to a not-guilty verdict, which, with the help of God, she was able to receive.
Although the alleged offence was committed in Georgetown, the freed woman said, she hails from Linden, but she could not say where she would be going at this time.
As the ‘wife poisoning porridge murder trial’ continued yesterday, the judge and jury heard that when told about the case, the wife, Gem George Eastman, unhesitatingly said to the police, “I don’t know anything about that.”
Detective Cpl. Stephen, the investigating rank who had related the above information to the mixed jury, also said he had found absolutely no poison at the home of the deceased. He disclosed that Parmanand Singh, a Caribbean Chemicals sales representative who had allegedly sold the accused the poison, was present in the store when a witness, in the presence of the accused, had pointed out the representative as well as a bottle of the poison.
But when called to give evidence yesterday, Singh declared that he had looked all over the court and had not seen the person in court, although the alleged accused was in the dock.
Singh also denied that Detective Cpl. Stephen had shown him the accused.
And when the court called Detective Stephen, Singh said, “I know not the man.”
Jealousy
The alleged motive for the killing was said to be jealousy, in that the accused had suspected her husband of having an affair with another woman.
Following Aubrey Eastman’s death, Cpl Stephen said, he contacted Gem George Eastman at the East La Penitence Police Station and told her of the allegation against her. According to him, “As she was about to reply, I stopped her, cautioned her, and told her of her rights. She then replied saying, ‘I don’t know anything about that!’
“She declined to make a written statement. I then placed her in custody, where she was later charged.”
Witness said that on Saturday, November 3, 2007, at about 09:15 hrs, he held a confrontation between Claudette Forde and Gem George Eastman at the East La Penitence Police Station, whereby Claudette Forde narrated her story as per statement, and Eastman replied saying, “I don’t know what she talking about!” The story she had narrated was that she, Gem George Eastman and others were friends, and that sometime during the month of October 2007, Gem Eastman told her that she was having problems with Aubrey Eastman. Forde had said that she had gone with Gem Eastman at a place on Croal Street to buy poison, and there Gem had told her and others that she normally put the said poison she had purchased in porridge, medicine and other food she gave to Aubrey Eastman.
The prosecutors in the case were Mrs Konyo Thompson and Miss Renita Singh.
