You Were – By Latrishka Thomas
You Were Fearful Why
A man who claims he was gripped with fear on the day senior Customs official Nigel Christian was murdered faced intense questioning on day seven of the trial before Justice Rajiv Persaud over why, if that fear was so overwhelming, he drove straight past a police station on his very route to the murder scene and never once stopped – a line of cross-examination that proved to be the sharpest and most damaging of the entire day.
The 44-year-old Christian was abducted from his McKinnons residence on July 10, 2020, and found shot dead on a dirt road in Thibou’s later that day. Charged with his murder are Lasean Bully of Cashew Hill, Wayne Thomas of Hatton, and Saleim Harrigan of Green Bay, all of whom have maintained their innocence.
On Friday. the witness, who testified last week that he served as the driver for the three accused on the day of the abduction and murder, was pressed repeatedly and from multiple angles on his decision to bypass every opportunity available to him to raise the alarm, with defence attorney Michael Archibald making clear to the court that a man truly filled by fear would have made very different choices that day.
Defence attorney Michael Archibald, representing Lasean Bully, constructed the point with deliberate and methodical precision. He established step by step with the witness that the Langford police station was seconds away on the route he travelled toward Thibou’s that day. He then confirmed with him that police stations are staffed with armed officers; that those officers would have been capable of intervening; that both the Coolidge Police Station and Police Headquarters were also within close proximity at various points during the day. And then he asked whether, given the fear the witness claimed to feel, the police station or Thibou’s would have been the safer destination. The witness conceded it was the police station. Yet he drove past it. He drove to Thibou’s.
Archibald suggested the answer was straightforward; that the witness never went to the police because his brother and others known to him were involved in the killing and he was protecting them, not because he was afraid. The witness denied this, saying his mind and his fear had paralysed his judgement. Archibald was not satisfied. He put it to the witness that his failure to take any of the measures available to him – the police station on his route, the 911 call he never made, the armed officers who could have acted – was not the behaviour of a frightened man but of one who knew exactly what was happening and wanted it to proceed. The witness denied this also.
The cross-examination also drew out a significant new disclosure that had not previously surfaced in the witness’s testimony. He revealed for the first time in court that three guns were present among the group on the day of the killing.
Archibald also pressed the witness on the precise moment he claimed to have understood the men’s intentions. The witness told the court he only realised they were going to kill Christian when they jumped the fence at his property – a claim that sat uncomfortably alongside his earlier acknowledgement that he had been communicating with police about a murder plot in the weeks before it happened. When it was pointed out that he had also seen one of the accused carrying a gun in his shoe and had asked nothing about it, the witness confirmed he had said nothing and suspected nothing at that point.
Archibald disputed the witness’s account that the group had stopped at Louis Brothers to purchase gloves on the day of the killing. The witness maintained this was true, saying to the best of his memory it was Bully who entered the store. Archibald also challenged the witness’s claim that Bully had confessed to him that he shot Christian, saying flatly that this did not happen. The witness held firm, insisting it was the truth and that he was certain Bully had been at Christian’s home on July 10. Archibald closed by putting it directly to the witness that he was lying to protect his brother and others. The witness denied it.
Following the completion of cross-examination, the Crown conducted a brief re-examination. When asked what he had meant when he contacted an officer asking how to stay safe in the aftermath of the killing, the witness said he had not wanted to go back to collect the accused.
The jury then exercised their right to question the witness directly. Asked how long he had surveyed the area before the incident, he said he could not recall precisely but that he had been shown Christian’s home a couple of months before the killing. Asked whether all the accused had surveyed the location with him, he said perhaps one or two of them accompanied him at various times. A juror also asked why he had been invited to participate in the mission at all and he said simply that they trusted him. He confirmed he received no payment for his role as driver.
In addition, the jury asked why he had contacted the Attorney General about a robbery rather than going directly to police. The witness said he trusted the Attorney General but did not know which police officer he could trust.
Wednesday’s proceedings had been no less dramatic. The witness had endured back-to-back cross-examinations from defence attorneys Wendel Robinson and Sherfield Bowen, both of whom pursued the theory that the witness himself along with his now-deceased brother and others was the true architect of Christian’s killing and had falsely implicated the three accused men to protect himself.
Robinson had focused heavily on the DNA evidence, pointing out that the witness’s DNA had been found on a hoodie recovered at Cassada Gardens, with the DNA match recorded at a staggering one in 12 billion – making it overwhelmingly likely the garment belonged to him. The witness explained he had given it to Harrigan a few days before the murder.
Robinson also questioned him about a shirt on which his DNA was again the strongest profile present of 33,000. The witness explained that Bully had not been wearing a face mask and had asked him to remove his shirt so it could be used as one, though he could not recall whether he had mentioned this in any of his previous statements.
Robinson put it to the witness that by contrast, Bully’s DNA on the same hoodie registered just two and for Harrigan just three.
Bowen had taken an equally aggressive line, challenging the witness’s account of his movements on the day, raising cell tower data that he suggested contradicted the witness’s claimed route, and putting it to him that everything he attributed to accused Wayne Thomas in his testimony actually related to his own brother. Bowen had also pressed the witness on whether he had been offered anything for his cooperation and after being shown his own statement repeatedly, the witness acknowledged he had told police that no man’s life was worth twenty thousand dollars, though he maintained he was not paid and that money he received was to facilitate his relocation due to threats against him.
In one of the most striking moments of Wednesday’s session, Bowen raised the allegation that Christian’s murder was connected to corruption and investigations into multiple government contracts bearing the Prime Minister’s signature — which the witness said he was unaware of. Bowen also asked the witness directly who had issued the contract to kill Christian. The witness named Saleim Harrigan and identified a businessman, Raymond Yhapp, as the alleged contractor.
The testimony of the cooperating witness is now complete after days of cross-examination by all three defence attorneys, who collectively and consistently suggested he, his brother, and others were the true perpetrators of the killing and had falsely implicated the three accused men.
The Crown is represented by Director of Public Prosecutions Clement Joseph and Crown Counsel Curtis Cornelius, while Bully is represented by Michael Archibald, Thomas by Sherfield Bowen, and Harrigan by Wendel Alexander.
