Police officer: No eyewitness to connect Stubbs to murder
A police investigator on Wednesday conceded that there were no eyewitnesses to connect Stephen Stubbs to the murder of Samuel”Mouche”McKenzie and the attempted murder of Keith Woodside.
However, the investigator, Sergeant 451 Aaron Sands, said it was his”honest belief”that Stubbs and others were responsible for the drive-by shooting that occurred on November 22, 2007.
Sands was testifying as a defense witness in a lawsuit brought by Stubbs. He denied that he was one of the officers who beat Stubbs in an attempt to extract a confession.
A magistrate dismissed the charges against Stubbs and three other men in January 2009 after ruling there was no evidence.
Stubbs has filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit and is seeking compensation for the$20,000 spent to defend the allegations. He is also seeking unspecified damages and aggravated damages.
In their defense, police have said that Stubbs was arrested and charged based on”reasonable suspicion”.
Assistant Superintendent Bernard Bonamy Jr. also testified yesterday, saying that there was sufficient evidence to charge Stubbs. He also denied beating Stubbs and slamming his head into a wall when he refused to confess.
Bonamy said Stubbs was brought to court with sand on his face, not plaster from the wall as alleged by Stubbs. He said Stubbs fought with officers outside the Central Detective Unit Office and he fell to the ground as they restrained him.
Yet, when questioned by Stubbs’lawyer Roger Gomez Jr., Bonamy agreed that Stubbs was not through Wilson Street at the time of the shooting and no one said they saw him in the green Jeep with the gunmen.
Police had alleged that Stubbs was through the corner on a motorbike minutes before the shooting. At that time, he allegedly gave Woodside the following threatening message for McKenzie:”He say he ga kill me but I ga kill him first.”
However, according to Woodside, he never saw Stubbs through the corner. Gomez said this contradiction revealed a”deliberate fabrication of evidence.”
Gomez said that the prosecution was malicious because the Attorney General’s Office continued the case against Stubbs, although all of the prosecution witnesses swore affidavits alleging that their statements were coaxed by police.
Those affidavits were exhibited during a bail hearing. Gomez argued that lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office should have met with the witnesses after the new information was revealed.
Justice Stephen Isaacs will give a ruling in the matter at a date to be announced. Gary Francis appeared for the police force.