Authorities fabricate confession of accused burglar?

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) has found itself in a serious disagreement with a janitor in relation to whether he (the janitor) had confessed to being a key player behind the burglary of his former place of employment.

Twenty-seven-year-old Jamal ‘Blacky’ Victor is charged for the August 12 burglary of Crystal’s Night Club in Free Bottom.

Victor was not required to plead when he was brought before Magistrate Giselle Jackman-Lumy on Monday. That is because his matter is indictable, meaning it is triable before a judge and jury.

Allegations

The court heard that, days before the nightclub was burglarized, Victor was allegedly approached by men who inquired of the financial standing of the establishment.

Later, on the day in question, burglars broke into the club’s male bathroom where they gained access to the cash register and office.

They made off with $8,100 and an additional undisclosed amount of cash from the office safe before escaping through the back door.

Later that day, the owner realized that his place was burglarized and reported the matter to the police, who then launched an investigation.

Victor, who lived in a trailer in the vicinity of the club, was arrested on October 3.

Conflicting reports 

During his bail application for Victor, defence attorney Patrick Thompson argued that the Crown’s case was weak, claiming that there was no evidence which linked his client to the burglary.

He said even though Victor was approached by men inquiring whether or not the club had cash, it was a ‘far cry’ from saying he was involved in the burglary plot. The attorney, therefore, reasoned that his client was a fit and proper candidate for bail.

It was during that time that prosecutors informed the court of a second interview that they omitted from the allegations against Victor. They claimed Victor had indicated in the interview that he was paid $300 to give inside information about the club to ensure the heist was a success.

Prosecutors also said Victor gave up the names of two persons who were part of the burglary.

Victor’s attorney subsequently questioned why the prosecution chose to omit such a crucial piece of information if they believe the information to be true.

He argued that his client is adamant and confident that no such confession was given during any interview with the police.

The attorney further said his client maintains that all payments he received were from his then employer.

He then questioned why police haven’t hunted the ‘other men’ whose names they allege Victor had given up.

This doesn’t make sense

The prosecutor in the case then admitted that she did not read the entire file before presenting it to the court. She further admitted that sections of the report did not make sense to her.

She said it was during Thompson’s presentation that she skimmed through the file and stumbled on the crucial information that was initially omitted.

Thompson then requested for a copy of the alleged police interviews of his client. He said he is likely to take legal action if the interviews reveal that his client was telling the truth.

Magistrate Jackman-Lumy said ‘there is cause for concern’ in relation to the defence’s argument.

Nonetheless, she denied Victor’s bail application, saying that he could pose as a flight risk given that he is a native of Guyana and has insufficient ties to the territory. She also pointed out that the investigation is still ongoing.

Victor is scheduled to return to court on October 17.