Attorneys for Larry Prinston
Ricketts argued his appeal last week against conviction for the 2008 murder of
Estella Scott Roberts. He and co-appellant Kirkland Henry are scheduled to hear
the results of their appeals Monday.
While Henry admitted taking part in
the abduction, rape and robbery of Mrs. Roberts at night in an isolated area of
West Bay, he denied murder and told police Ricketts was the killer.
Lead Counsel Robert Fortune presented
three arguments to the Court of Appeal. They concerned the unexplained movement
of Mrs. Roberts’ phone the morning after her death, his client’s good character
and the police interview Ricketts admitted signing.
Mr. Fortune said the written
interview was not an authentic record of what had happened nothing Ricketts
said was incriminating.
“These answers were clearly crafted
by officers who wanted an admission of murder,” he declared. There was nothing
in the interview that police would not have already known from their 17 days of
intensive investigation and from Henry’s interview, which was going on at the
same time, the attorney said.
“All this is speculation,” Justice
Ian Forte remarked. “Is there any evidence of police running back and forth?
Someone coming in and whispering?”
Mr. Fortune said no. All he could
point to was the number of breaks taken.
Court president Sir John Chadwick
asked who had said what during the trial about the circumstances in which the
interview was conducted and signed. He pointed out that Chief Justice Anthony
Smellie, who was sitting without a jury at the defendants’ request, heard the
evidence.
“You’re saying the Chief Justice
got it wrong in his evaluation of the evidence he heard,” he told Mr. Fortune,
who agreed.
The question arose as to why
Ricketts would sign an interview that amounted to a full confession of murder.
Asked that question in court,
Ricketts said the officer told him if he agreed to it, probably the officer
would just let him go and not charge him. Ricketts said he never really wanted
to sign because it wasn’t correctly stated when he first read it. Later, however,
he said he did not read the interview word by word.
Solicitor General Cheryll Richards
said Ricketts was inconsistent and contradictory about his reasons for signing
the interview. She noted at one point he said the officers might beat him, but
earlier said they never threatened him.
The judge had held a hearing within
the trial to determine if the interview should be admitted into evidence. The
judge was satisfied the officers were being truthful. He also noted that the
allegation of concoction did not fit with the fact that no mention was made of
Ricketts sexually assaulting the victim, although this was alleged by Henry.
Summarising her argument on the
interview being accepted into evidence, Ms Richards said, “There is nothing
that makes these findings so unreasonable as to demand intervention.”
Related Videos
