Nightclub CCTV doesn’t show shooting

Video analyst tells court tracked Devon Anglin and Carlo Webster through the night

Eleven cameras were installed at the Next Level Night Club, but none of them covered the area of the club in which Carlo Webster was fatally shot in the early hours of 10 September, 2010. Further, no camera showed anyone firing a gun. 

These conclusions were part of evidence given last week by forensic video analyst Grant Fredericks in the trial of Devon Anglin on the charge of murder. 

Anglin chose to be tried by judge alone and Chief Justice Anthony Smellie is hearing the matter. 

Questioned by Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryll Richards, Mr. Fredericks said the technology involved in interpreting digital images, how colours show up as different tones when pictures are in black and white and how different lighting affect colours and how infrared cameras show colours.  

He noted that camera No. 11, in the main bar area, was infra red.  

Accepted as an expert, he said he was asked to track primarily the person identified to him as Devon Anglin.  

He wore light shoes, mid-tone pants and a shirt with wide rugby-type stripes.  

Mr. Fredericks said he looked for other persons dressed the same way, but found none.  

Before he presented his findings, an anonymous witness gave evidence via audio link; only the judge saw the video. This person, referred to as Witness E, said he saw a fight between a man in an orange shirt and a man in a striped shirt. He said he could see because there were lights on top of the bar. 

Later, he saw the man in the orange shirt go toward the bathroom area. Then he saw the striped-shirt man and the two were face to face with about 20 centimetres between them.  

He did not keep looking at them, but turned and faced the bar. After three seconds passed he heard a shot but did not know where it came from.  

But then he saw people come out from the bathroom area to the exit door. He heard a second shot but did not remember if he heard any more. 

After he heard the shot he turned around and faced the bathroom and he saw the man with the striped shirt walking out of the club.  

This man had a gun in his hand and he put it in his pants waist. Witness E described the gunman as 165 centimetres in height, light skin and hair cut low.  

Questioned later by the defence attorney, the witness said the gunman had no hair on his face. 

Asked if he had done anything, the witness replied, “When he was walking out with the gun in his hand, he walked across in front of me and I put out my hand to protect my friend behind me from the gunman.” The Chief Justice, watching this evidence, demonstrated how the witness had extended his arm and moved it backward. 

It was this motion that attracted the attention of a police constable assigned to view camera footage.  

Constable Jared Ebanks told the court he had lived in West Bay all his life and knew people from school, football and community activities. He said he was asked to identify persons entering the club.  

He viewed all the footage, including that from a camera over the door of the male rest room, and made a record of everyone whose name he knew and the times shown on the video. 

He showed still photos of various scenes from the camera footage, including a close-up of Anglin in a shirt with broad stripes entering the club at 10.42pm. A photo he identified as Carlo Webster showed him entering the club at 11.45pm wearing an orange shirt. 

His notes recorded seeing two flashes of light – at eight seconds after 1.30am and two seconds later. At 19 seconds past 1.30am he noted the action of a person shielding someone by putting his arm out and pushing back. The outside camera at the exit showed a part of a person in a striped shirt at 27 seconds past 1.30am. 

Defence attorney Dorian Lovell-Pank showed him a picture of another man in a striped shirt at the exit and asked if the shirts were similar.  

The officer agreed they were similar but not the same, pointing to the different patterns of the stripes.  

The video analyst agreed, noting the way the sleeves fit into the body of the shirts. 

Mr. Lovell-Pank said Witness E had told the court the man who passed him wearing a striped shirt was 160 to 165 centimetres, which he converted to be between 5 feet 3 inches and 5 feet 5 inches, while a previous witness had said 5 feet 5 inches or 5 feet 6 inches. Yet after his arrest, Anglin was measured by police and found to be 5 feet 9 inches. The attorney asked if Mr. Fredericks had considered height as part of the image he was tracking. He said no. 

Asked about facial hair, Mr. Fredericks said the level of detail in a high resolution photograph would not be replicated in the video system. 

Onlookers in court saw the footage from the nightclub as witnesses referred to it.  

However, when the camera showed persons moving past Witness E, the frame was masked so only individuals leaving the club were shown.