Nigel Christian – By Latrishka Thomas
Nigel Christian Murder Trial
During the Nigel Christian murder trial yesterday, a senior police officer revealed that the Crown’s key witness — the driver who said he transported and watched the three accused on the day of the killing — told him during an interview that he had met with a politician and senior officers in connection with the matter. That politician, it emerged, is related (by marriage) to another officer who rear-ended Christian’s vehicle on the very afternoon he was abducted and killed.
The disclosure was the most striking to emerge on the latest day of proceedings in the trial of Lasean Bully, Wayne Thomas and Saleim Harrigan before Justice Rajiv Persaud, a trial that is now approaching its end with approximately three witnesses remaining before the defence presents its case.
The senior sergeant, attached to the Serious Crimes Unit, assisted by interviewing Thomas, the driver who has become the key witness in the trial, and the man who had rented a car to the driver around the time of the murder. That silver car, according to the driver’s testimony, was used to drop off the accused at the home of Christian, where he said he saw the trio abduct him. He said he also drove behind them and came upon Christian’s bloodied body in Thibou’s.
The officer told the court that when he interviewed the driver, the man said he had met with a politician in that politician’s chambers alongside high-ranking officers and had told them he could help with information about a robbery. That information reportedly led to the arrest of the three accused.
The meeting with the politician is not a new revelation in this trial as references to it have surfaced through other witnesses, some of whom said they had heard about it while others said they were not aware of it. But yesterday marked the first time the detail came directly from an officer who sat across from the driver and heard it firsthand during a formal interview.
The revelation added yet another layer to what has already been established about the driver’s relationship with law enforcement prior to the murder. Earlier in the trial, it emerged that the driver had been feeding information to police in the weeks before Christian was killed, and that at least one officer was aware that a murder was being planned as a result of that information. Despite this, no protective measures were taken and Christian was not placed in protective custody. The question of why, given what police reportedly knew, nothing was done to prevent the killing has lingered over the proceedings throughout.
The sergeant confirmed that during his interview with the driver, the man said he felt confused, as he thought he was helping police rather than being interviewed as a murder suspect. The sergeant said he was surprised by this. He further confirmed that the driver told him he felt like he was being made to feel like a prisoner during questioning, and that when asked whether anyone had given him anything, the driver’s response was that no man’s life was worth twenty-something thousand dollars.
The sergeant acknowledged he had not known the driver had police protection prior to interviewing him and said he was operating on a need-to-know basis. When asked whether he had been instructed not to charge the driver, he said that matter was not discussed with him. He was also not aware of any discussion surrounding the driver being charged with murder, though he later acknowledged that he had in fact interviewed the driver as a suspect, while maintaining he had not known the driver had been interviewed as a suspect months prior. When it was suggested to him that he knew more than he was letting on, he did not accept that.
The defence then pursued a pointed line of questioning aimed at establishing the sergeant’s true purpose in the investigation. One attorney asked the sergeant directly whether he had been searching for the truth in this matter, to which he said yes. He was then asked whether he was part of any cover-up or was simply looking for the truth. The sergeant’s response was carefully measured. He said he did not know about any cover-up but confirmed he was looking for the truth.
The defence also established that the sergeant had not been called to the scene when Christian was killed, despite being a senior officer in the Serious Crimes Unit who would typically respond to a murder. He said he was on call but was not contacted. When asked whether he felt any way about a more junior officer being assigned as lead investigator, he said he did not. The defence further confirmed that the sergeant had not been instructed not to charge the driver, as that matter was simply not discussed with him. When asked whether he had recommended that the driver be charged, he said no.
His role, the sergeant explained, was largely confined to interviews and a visit to the Thibou’s crime scene two days after the murder. When pressed on why, as a senior officer in the Serious Crimes Unit, he had not taken a more active role in the investigation, he offered no clear explanation. He also said he was not aware of a Customs fraud investigation involving Christian and did not know that Christian had expressed concerns about his personal safety.
Also testifying was the man who rented the vehicle used by the Crown’s cooperating witness on the day of the killing. He told the court the driver was a regular customer who came to him for a car on July 7th, 2020 but had no money and returned the following morning, July 8th, to complete the rental for two days. The vehicle was returned on the evening of July 10. The witness said that the day after giving the driver the car, police contacted him asking about the vehicle and came to his home to view security camera footage.
Under cross-examination, the man confirmed he had checked the vehicle when it was returned and had not seen a black T-shirt inside. His evidence was challenged on the basis that he cannot read English, raising questions about whether the written statement attributed to him accurately reflected what he said. The officer who took his statement, the above-mentioned senior sergeant, confirmed the man could not read English but maintained the statement was read back to him. When pressed on how the man could verify the accuracy of what was written if he could not read it himself, the officer said it had been read aloud to him. In re-examination, the DPP asked whether any lies had been placed in the statement and the officer said no.
This latest round of testimony adds to a picture that has been building throughout the trial of an investigation that, while producing significant forensic evidence, has also been marked by procedural gaps, unanswered questions and decisions that witnesses have struggled to adequately explain.
The Crown’s case has included testimony from a man who says he watched the three accused abduct Christian at gunpoint from his McKinnons home and later discovered his body on a dirt road in Thibou’s. FBI experts presented phone tracking and DNA evidence placing the accused at locations consistent with the account given by the key witness. Christian’s mother described watching masked men in military camouflage attire force her son away at gunpoint, and a senior defence force officer confirmed that a genuine ABDF uniform recovered at the scene could not have been purchased by any member of the public.
The trial resumes on April 13th before Justice Rajiv Persaud. The Crown is led 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.
