Driver’s licence link to dead man triggers heated courtroom tug-of-war

A driver’s licence from a 2017 murder scene on Ripon Road in St Andrew which clued in sleuths to the identity of the man killed in that incident set the stage for a major tug-of-war between the defence and the prosecution in the ongoing trial of 25 alleged members of the so-called Tesha Miller faction of the Klansman Gang on Thursday.

On Thursday, a detective sergeant who was the lead investigator for the August 14, 2017 shooting on Ripon Road, just outside the infamous Palais Royal “guest house”, took the stand for the first time during the trial in the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court and created the link between the body taken from the scene and the one laying in the morgue.

A forensic scene of crime investigator who previously testified about the same incident had told the court that he had not been able to establish who the dead man was. According to the Crown, that man is Kevin Green and the accused Tesha Miller, Rolando Jermaine Hall, and Michael Wildman facilitated the commission of that murder.

In addition the Crown has charged the same three accused with facilitating the wounding with intent of another man who survived that shooting and who was interviewed by the lead investigator shortly following the gun attack.

According to the veteran sleuth, he and a team, on the night in question, after receiving a call from police emergency proceeded to the location where he saw a cordoned scene. The cop said after being told certain things by two officers who were at the location he placed a call to request a scene of crime unit before proceeding to the accident and emergency section of Kingston Public Hospital where he spoke with medical personnel who introduced him to a wounded man (name withheld) who had survived the shooting.

He said after speaking with the man he returned to the Ripon Road scene where a scene of crime officer was processing the area. The detective sergeant, who said he went inside the cordoned area, told the court that he made several observations which included several spent casings, blood along the road and blood inside a motorcar.

According to the cop, he, along with the scene of crime investigator, went to Tranquillity Funeral Home where he saw the body of a male lying on a morgue table. He said he “also had a photograph”, but was stopped by an objection from defence attorney Paul Gentles who represents Wildman.

Gentles cautioned that the witness could not be allowed to reference a document that was not in evidence.

Several exchanges later, the detective sergeant resumed his evidence and completed his interrupted comment to state that during his visit to the morgue, he had in his possession “a Jamaican driver’s licence with a photograph and the name Kevin Omar Green” which had been handed to him at the murder scene by the cop who was the first responder.

Gentles again objected.

“It’s the very thing we are objecting about.. the contents of a document which is not disclosed to us and was not even submitted as part of the scene of crime report, so in 2026 it’s the first we are hearing of a driver’s licence,” Gentles complained.

The acting deputy director of public prosecutions who had been eliciting the evidence from the sleuth rebutted by saying the objection was premature.

“I had intended to lead a bit more evidence and I hadn’t anticipated certain things would be said at this juncture,” the lead prosecutor noted, adding that Gentles’ utterances that the defence was hearing of a driver’s licence for the first time was not true as the disclosure served on them in the form of statements from various witnesses had made “certain indications”.

Inviting the defence to “make checks” he said “the physical document, though spoken of in respect of the disclosure which has been given, was not retrieved by the Crown [but] even if the physical document wasn’t produced, that by itself could not create the particular nexus we are speaking of… the nexus to establish that the person named in the indictment will come from witnesses to come as well as scientific material to come; which has already been disclosed on the defence”.

An unrelenting Gentles, however, said, “I do apologise for the back and forth but it is important that the court appreciates what was to happen as it relates to this document that is not in evidence and ask the Crown to be guided by their many objections about the contents of documents not in evidence. This document, which cannot now be found, what the Crown is now doing is asking the court to disabuse its mind about this document”.

Trial judge Justice Dale Palmer, in settling the matter, sagely remarked, “No, that was not being asked.”

Gentles, however, continued, saying that “the Crown has been struggling to get the body recognised” and so was clutching at straws to do so.

“We are of the belief that through this witness and through this driver’s licence we are of the belief that it is towards establishing a nexus. This particular officer’s statement was not produced until eight years… after. An investigating officer is giving a statement and we are submitting that there is the possibility for a concoction,” Gentles said dramatically.

“That’s where I was going. I am only saying, if that was the intention, I don’t know that it could by itself establish that,” Justice Palmer noted.

Said the lead prosecutor: “May I also give the court some comfort. I did say it wasn’t the intent. We see things through different lenses.”

He then urged Gentles to revisit the disclosed documents, noting that the nexus being established by the Crown could not be “established on its own through this witness”.

The detective sergeant, who had been asked to dismount the witness stand and wait outside the courtroom during the exchange, on his return said, “I realised that the person’s body who was on the morgue table was in the photograph on the licence”. He said he then commenced an investigation into a case of murder and wounding with intent.

Additionally, he said he attended the post-mortem for Green in September 2017 where he introduced the identifying person to the doctor who was to conduct the post-mortem. He said following the post-mortem he collected a statement from the individual who identified the body.

Under cross examination by Gentles he told the court that up to the time he ceased being the investigating officer in 2018 he had made no arrests and had no suspects. The cop came under pressure from Gentles about the circumstances under which his first statement in the matter, which he said he made in 2017, was mislaid and the reasons he produced a second statement eight years after the incident.

The defence attorney, in charging that the cop was being “evasive” in his answers, accused the cop of lying, while charging that he had not produced an original statement.

“I know I did an original statement,” the detective sergeant told Gentles, noting that a copy had been deposited at the Half-Way-Tree Registry.

The sleuth came in for further jabs from Gentles after he admitted that he had lost track of the notebook he used during the investigation and had done his 2026 statement mostly from memory.

“Since you have such a wonderful memory, can you tell us what happened to that driver’s licence?” Gentles asked sarcastically.

“It was handed to [an acquaintance] of the deceased,” the lawman replied, only to be taken to task by Gentles for “removing” items from the scene.

“Isn’t it correct to say that all items of evidence should be collected, documented, and logged… did you enquire where that driver’s licence came from?” Gentles wanted to know, before going on to ask the cop whether he had made any enquiries to find out whether the document had been dropped by “one of the perpetrators”.

When the cop responded that he had made enquiries, Gentles then demanded to know if the lawman had made note of this enquiry in his 2026 statement.

When the lawman, after perusing his statement, confirmed that he had not made any such note in it, Gentles said, “is it that you want to say you have it in your 2017 statement that can’t be found, is that what you want to say?”

Asked further whether he had made a diary entry about the driver’s licence and the entry number of that note, the cop said: “I would not be able to recall.”

Said Gentles: “I am going to suggest to you that you are lying when you said Constable (name withheld) handed you that driver’s licence”.

“I received that driver’s licence from Constable (name withheld) that very night,” the lawman replied.

“I am going to suggest to you that you, being a senior investigator that has attended hundreds of murder scenes, the reason the enquiry is not in your statement of 2026 is because is lie you telling,” the lawyer told the witness.

“Counsel, you know I am not a liar, I am not a liar, I disagree with you,” the sleuth replied coolly.

The attorney will complete his cross examination when the matter resumes on Friday morning at 10:00.