Bill Walton UCLA Jersey qkiifdvr

fd9je6mn

Prosecution witness Rabindranuth Seemangal, once a co-accused in the matter, yesterday testified against other four persons charged with robbing prominent businessman Malcolm Panday in excess of $7 million dollars. In his testimony, the witness related that he was instructed to kill Panday if he “played the fool”Before Seemangal took the stand, Defence Counsel Michael Somersall highlighted the issue of the witness’ credibility as a former accused.He submitted that the court should take into consideration “the weight and reliance of Seemangal’s evidence” as he was previously charged with the other defendants.Under examination by Lead Prosecutor and Attorney-At-Law Glenn Hanoman, Seemangal told the court he was once charged along with the other four defendants (Hardat Kumar, Chandrada Rampersaud, Aubrey Simon and Jermaine Mitchell), three of whom sat in the prisoner dock. He made no mention of Rayon Jones, who is also a defendant in the matter.Seemangal stated that he was not offered any inducement neither was he forced to give evidence on the Prosecution’s behalf.“I just feel that I should tell the truth that is all ah we play a part in the crime… It’s not me alone and so all ah we should be doing prison time.”Seemangal is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for the offence after he admitted to his involvement in the act.He told the court that on the day of the robbery, Hardat Kumar, whom he had known for over a year, introduced him to Jermaine Mitchell and Aubrey Simon. The witness pointed out Mitchell, but did not have the opportunity to identify Simon as he has reportedly fled the jurisdiction.“We meet up at ‘flat shop’ on Sheriff Street to tek a drink and Hardat introduce me to two black boy (Mitchell and Simon) who de don deh at the shop. He tell me that wha dey plan.”According to the witness, Kumar told him that they were going to commit a robbery at the home of Malcolm Panday, but that “he can’t go because is he family.”“Hardat tell me that all I have to do is go in the yard and ask for Mr. Panday and when dey open de door Jermaine gon run in wid de gun and rob de people.”Seemangal stated that Kumar told him that his aunt works with the Pandays and will call to tell them “when is the right time to go”.A few minutes later, he said, Kumar started to talk to someone on the phone.Seemangal said that the person at the other end of the line sounded like a woman,Angelo Henriquez Chile Jersey, Kumar’s aunt, as the phone was placed on “loud speaker.”When asked by Hanoman if he was familiar with the voice that emanated from the cell phone, the witness answered in the affirmative, while noting that he had heard Kumar’s aunt speak at least twice before.“One time she was talkin wid her sister, and at another time was at a wake house… at Hardat house, where she was serving coffee.”Defence Counsel Omeyana Hamilton objected to the statement by the witness.Hamilton contested Seemangal’s answer on the grounds of the circumstance in which he said that he was familiar with the voice he heard over the phone, whilst noting that hearing someone speak in person and over the phone are two different things.Further in his evidence, Seemangal said that he did not know that Kumar’s aunt had stopped working for the Pandays two years before. He said that he later realized that Kumar had “fooled” him.The witness described the woman he knew to be Kumar‘s aunt and identified Rampersaud as that person.According to Seemangal, not only was he instructed to rob Panday, but to kill him.“All you have to do is frighten the children and Mr. Panday will give you everything, but if he plays the fool, kill him if you have to kill him.”The man said that he was afraid if he “backed out” of the robbery at that stage “dem boys woulda kill me”Later, during cross examination by Hamilton, Seemangal said that he was not forced to commit the robbery. Hamilton noted that Seemangal had earlier stated that Mitchell held him at gunpoint and forced him to commit the crime.  Seemangal stated that he could not remember making such a statement.  He however recognized his signature on the said statement which was later presented to him.The witness insisted that he was not fabricating the information against the other accused, but feels that they too should pay for what they had done.