A senior police officer today testified that the cellular phone found in the possession of an alleged robber belonged to Canadian diplomat Dr Nicole Giles.
However, while Giles’ husband Brian was recorded in an earlier police statement as saying that the stolen device was a Samsung, the No. 5 Supreme Court heard today that the phone, which has been logged as evidence in the case against Teddy Orlando McDonald Gill of No. 77 Wanstead Gardens, St James, was a Nokia.
Gill is on trial before a nine-member jury accused of indecently assaulting Giles on April 7, 2015 and robbing her family of a wallet, BDS$400 and GUY$30,000 in cash, a cellular phone and a digital camera.
Today, lead investigator Sergeant Darby Griffith was adamant when he appeared before Madam Justice Pamela Beckles that the electronic device found in Gill’s possession was “the stolen phone” even though the accused has been maintaining that he purchased the device from a man named Yank in Swan Street, The City, and also had a receipt to show proof of purchase.
However, the lead prosecutor said police were unable to track down anyone named Yank on Swan Street, Roebuck Street, Tudor Street or in Greenfield, The City, despite numerous inquiries.
Griffith said a search was also made for Karren Moore, whose name was on the receipt, but no such name was found on the electoral list.
The senior police officer said Gill was therefore informed of his rights and questioned about the robbery of the Canadian couple who were on vacation with their two children.
“I don’t know none bout no robbery. I brought the phone from Yank . . . . This is the phone that I gave to Andrea that I get from Yank . . . . I brought it for $85 . . . . I have a receipt,” Gill reportedly told Griffith at the time of his arrest.
When asked if he had stolen the phone, Gill allegedly responded: “I can’t admit to that, this one big. She say she was a big up.”
And questioned further about whether the “big up” was an ambassador, he allegedly said: “Something like that.”
However, under cross-examination by Gill, the lead investigator revealed that the complainants never identified the phone as they were not in Barbados.
The accused then put it to the sergeant that he was arrested for the crime because of “who the complainants were”, but Griffith insisted that this was not the case.
“You had it [the stolen phone] in your possession after your girlfriend asked you for a phone. The writing on the receipt looked similar to your handwriting. We [the police] could not find Yank and a search of the electoral [list] showed there were four Karen Moores but none spelt Karren,” the lead investigator said.
Griffith also pointed to Gill’s alleged oral statement that he could not admit to the crime because “she say she was a big up”.
The case, which is being prosecuted by Crown Counsel Neville Watson, continues on Monday.