Prosecution Closes – Investigator Faces Cross-Examination Over Gaps in Evidence
Prosecution Closes Its Case
By Latrishka Thomas
The lead investigator in the murder trial of three men accused of killing senior Customs officer Nigel Christian faced probing cross-examination on Friday, with defence counsel challenging a series of investigative decisions before the prosecution formally closed its case.
Saleim Harrigan, 35, Wayne Thomas, 33, and Lasean Bully, 35, are on trial before Justice Rajiv Persaud. They are accused of abducting Christian at gunpoint from his McKinnons home on July 10, 2020, and shooting him dead on a dirt road in Thibou’s that same afternoon.
Christian was a senior Customs official who had reportedly been part of a team investigating fraud at the time of his death, alongside colleague Cornell Benjamin, who was himself shot months before.
The lead investigator — a female sergeant attached to the Serious Crimes Unit and the prosecution’s final witness — completed her cross-examination on Friday before the prosecution closed its case.
Background: What the Trial Has Established So Far
To understand Friday’s proceedings, it is necessary to understand what has been established in the trial, which began on February 19.
The Crown’s case centres significantly on the account of a man referred to throughout as “the driver,” who told the court he transported the three accused on the day of the killing. He said he watched them force Christian at gunpoint from his McKinnons home and into a vehicle, that he followed behind discreetly, and later came upon Christian’s body on the dirt road in Thibou’s. He also told the court that Harrigan had named businessman Raymond Yhap as the person who ordered the killing, that he had been in communication with police about a murder plot against Christian before it happened, that Harrigan had instructed him to change the licence plates on his rental vehicle, and that he had been asked to buy petrol to burn bags he later directed police to at Perry Bay. Those bags contained clothing, shoes, gloves and other items believed to have been worn by the killers.
The prosecution contends that one of the bags belonged to Christian, thereby linking him to the scene — though DNA testing confirmed that Christian’s DNA was not found on any of the items at Perry Bay, including the bag itself. The bag was identified by Christian’s girlfriend based on its features and the tea bags and Swiss chocolate found inside. However, his mother and brother told police they did not recognise it.
A search of Cassada Gardens — where Christian’s truck was found abandoned on the day after the murder — produced additional items including clothing and documents. The prosecution has presented DNA evidence linking the three accused to items recovered from both locations, with an FBI forensic DNA examiner having given evidence earlier in the trial. That expert linked DNA from items recovered at Cassada Gardens and Perry Bay to the accused using statistical likelihood ratios, some of which reached into the trillions, quadrillions and beyond.
Among the most significant findings: Harrigan’s DNA appeared on a hat recovered from Cassada Gardens at a likelihood ratio of 7.7 billion, on one glove at 42 trillion, and on a second glove at 49 quadrillion. A shirt recovered at Perry Bay linked Thomas at a ratio of 3.4 octillion. Bully’s DNA was found on the outside of a backpack recovered at Perry Bay at a likelihood ratio of 46, with a more moderate ratio of 2,400 on the inner straps and zippers. Notably, despite these findings, no DNA from Christian was found on any of the items at Perry Bay.
Thursday’s proceedings saw police interviews with all three accused read into evidence by the lead investigator, assisted at times by an Assistant Superintendent of Police who had helped prepare two of the interviews. Across those interviews, each of the accused either denied involvement in the killing or declined to answer when confronted with the evidence against them.
Cross-Examination by Wendel Alexander, Counsel for Harrigan
Wendel Alexander opened the cross-examination by questioning the investigator about a statement she had recorded from Christian’s mother in the days following the murder. He noted that the mother had dictated the statement while the investigator wrote it down, and established that the investigator had agreed it would have been critical to obtain a description of the intruders and their clothing. The investigator said she had no reason to doubt the mother’s accuracy — including on the question of how many people she said she saw on the premises.
Alexander then turned to the question of the driver’s shifting status throughout the investigation. The investigator explained the difference between a caution statement — taken from a suspect or someone thought to have been involved — and a witness statement. She confirmed that the driver’s status had changed over time: person of interest in July 2020, witness in January 2021, and then suspect in April 2021, though he was ultimately never charged. She acknowledged that police do not place people in cells if they are merely persons of interest, but only if they are suspects — a concession that carried weight given that the driver had at one point been placed in a cell.
Alexander established that the driver had a handler in the intelligence unit, and the investigator said she was not aware whether the driver’s movements had been monitored between July 10 and 19, 2020. She also confirmed she could not speak to what happened to the pickup truck between July 10 and 11.
When Alexander asked whether police had questioned the driver about the presence of his DNA on a sweater found at Cassada Gardens, she said it was possible but she was not sure. When asked whether she could recall the driver saying in any of his statements that he had lent Harrigan a sweater, she initially said yes — but after being handed the statement to check, she said she did not see it. She also said she did not see anything in the statement indicating the driver had given Bully a shirt to use as a mask. The FBI DNA expert had earlier testified that the driver’s DNA appeared on a sweatshirt recovered from Cassada Gardens with a likelihood ratio of 33,000, and that Harrigan’s DNA also appeared on the same item. During the trial, the driver had claimed he gave the items to two of the accused.
Alexander further established that the mother’s statement made no mention of any perpetrator wearing a blue coverall, and that she had said she saw four people — three in camouflage and one in all black — not three. He also confirmed that the mother had not mentioned a khaki broad-brimmed hat. The investigator agreed on all counts.
On the photograph of Christian’s truck found on Harrigan’s phone, the investigator acknowledged that images received through WhatsApp can be automatically saved to a phone’s gallery, and said she was not certain how the image came to be on Harrigan’s device. She confirmed no analysis had been done to establish this.
Alexander also confirmed that none of the three accused had any previous convictions. He noted that when the investigator questioned Harrigan, she had told him it was he and three other persons who had carried out the kidnapping — a detail that sat uncomfortably alongside the mother’s account of four people being present.
When Alexander raised the driver’s claim that he had been told to purchase gasoline to burn items at Perry Bay, the investigator said she was not sure whether this had been investigated. She said she was not aware that the driver and an Assistant Commissioner of Police had driven around together in relation to the matter, and not aware that the driver, that same Assistant Commissioner, and other senior police had met at a politician’s office to discuss the case. She also said she was not aware that the driver had informed police of a plan to kill Christian before it happened — though she confirmed, when shown the relevant passage, that the driver’s statement did say he was told to observe what the accused were doing and then inform police.
Cross-Examination by Sherfield Bowen, Counsel for Thomas
Sherfield Bowen picked up where Alexander left off, pressing the investigator on a range of leads she had not pursued and directives she had received.
When Bowen asked when the investigation had shifted to focusing on three men instead of four, the investigator said this had become clearer further into the investigation. When he suggested that someone had told her to ignore her police instincts, she said no — though she confirmed that someone was managing the case and giving her directives. She maintained she had not been directed away from the truth.
Bowen established that the investigator had not investigated skid marks at the scene in Thibou’s, despite agreeing it had occurred to her that a vehicle connected to the murder could have made them. He also confirmed that the investigator had not debriefed her supervisor on the night of the killing, and that her supervisor had not been at Thibou’s that night.
Bowen drew attention to a DVR found on the seat of Christian’s truck at Cassada Gardens, with the investigator confirming she had seen it and had considered whether it could be the same DVR removed from Christian’s McKinnons home. A brother of Christian had earlier testified that when he arrived at the home after the killing, the CCTV recorder was missing and the kitchen door locks had been forced. The investigator said she had made attempts within her reach to recover the footage but did not know the make of the device.
Bowen raised the account of a witness who said she had seen a white RAV4 travelling at speed in the Royal Gardens area near a pond and had described the vehicle as darkly tinted and suspicious. The investigator confirmed she had not checked the licence plate numbers the woman provided with the Transport Board, explaining that the woman had not told her the vehicle had come from Thibou’s. She agreed she had considered those to be leads but said she had not followed them based on additional information she had received.
Bowen also raised Christian’s movements on the day of his death. He established that Christian had been involved in a road accident with the son of a politician that afternoon before going to police headquarters — and that the officer involved in that accident is the son-in-law of the same politician. The investigator confirmed she was aware of the accident, but said she was not aware of whether the officer involved had tracked Christian from police headquarters all the way to Paynters.
When Bowen asked whether an Assistant Commissioner of Police had been receiving information about a threat to Christian three months before the killing, the investigator said she did not know. She was similarly unaware that a call had been made to a police officer about the incident before the official call was placed, and unaware of the driver’s alleged meeting with senior officials — during which he reportedly offered information about a casino robbery before being released, after which a search warrant for one of the accused’s homes was obtained shortly after.
When Bowen suggested that the bags at Perry Bay had come into the investigation under unclear circumstances, the investigator agreed. When he suggested that the Swiss chocolate and tea bags had in fact been in Christian’s truck and not in the bag — and that they had been placed in the bag to link it to Christian — the investigator said she was not aware of that. She confirmed that no DNA from Christian had been found on any of the items at Perry Bay, including the bag. And she agreed that Christian’s DNA had been found on a sweatshirt, shirt, pants and shoes recovered during the investigation, but that none of the accused’s DNA appeared on those same items.
When Bowen noted that camera footage had shown the driver’s vehicle at Cassada Gardens and asked why this had not been investigated further, the investigator said she had been given directives.
Cross-Examination by Michael Archibald, Counsel for Bully
Michael Archibald closed out the cross-examination, focusing heavily on gaps in the investigation and the reliability of the driver’s account.
While the investigator acknowledged she was aware that the driver had been seen visiting Christian’s home on multiple occasions before the murder, she confirmed that no one had inquired as to the specific dates of those visits, and that no camera footage had been requested from any date other than July 10. She said this was because the murder had occurred on that date.
Archibald asked whether any forensic examination had been done to determine the trajectory of the bullet that killed Christian — noting that the position of a shooter can be determined through such analysis. The investigator said she did not know. She also said she did not know whether blood spatter had been analysed.
On the question of the bag at Perry Bay, Archibald asked whether a bag used daily should contain the user’s DNA. The investigator said it depended on the circumstances. When he asked whether, upon learning no DNA had been found on the bag, she had sought any other means of confirming it belonged to Christian, she said no. She also confirmed that in none of the driver’s statements did he mention the bag, and that no documentation she was aware of showed the driver had been asked to identify the items recovered from Perry Bay.
When Archibald asked whether Christian’s mother had been shown the Perry Bay items to see if they matched what she described the kidnappers wearing, the investigator said forensic personnel had handled that. When Archibald suggested this had not in fact been done, she said she would be surprised if that were true.
Archibald also asked whether an Assistant Commissioner of Police had called any of his team to take the driver to Perry Bay, or whether he had instead taken the driver himself. She said she did not know. When he noted that the driver had said he picked up Bully from a hospital on the day of the killing, Archibald asked whether call records had been checked to verify this. She said no.
When Archibald put to her that the driver had implicated the three accused to shield other persons — and that the driver had in fact been the mastermind — she disagreed. When he suggested that none of the three accused had been involved, she again disagreed.
When Archibald pointedly noted that she had submitted the case herself and that it was therefore incumbent on her to know it fully, she agreed.
Re-Examination and Jury Questions
In re-examination by Director of Public Prosecutions Clement Joseph, the investigator clarified that she did not know how the bags had come to be at Perry Bay.
The jury then submitted questions of their own. When asked who had given directions on what leads to pursue and who to charge, she named an Assistant Superintendent of Police who also gave evidence in the trial. When asked whether she had been satisfied with the investigation before charging the accused, she said yes. When asked whether the investigation was based solely on the driver’s account, she said no — pointing to the driver’s testimony alongside additional evidence.
With the prosecution’s case now formally closed, the defence is set to begin presenting its own on Monday. The Crown is led by Director of Public Prosecutions Clement Joseph. Bully is represented by Michael Archibald, Thomas by Sherfield Bowen, and Harrigan by Wendel Alexander.
