Clive ''Lizard'' Williams
Clive ”Lizard” Williams

Howard Cook at OCID told court he received fourteen items from Constabulary Pitt at OCID. He logged them into a case register n gave them a reference number
Lawyer for the defense Miguel Lorne cross-examined Cook
Ques- all the items you received u told the court about?
Ans- yes
Ques-how did you receive these items?
Ans- with SIM cards inside the phones
Ques- so u had to search inside phone to get the numbers
Ans- I did not search
Ques- so u had to go inside the phone
Ans- yes Sir
Ques- so u searched the phone
Ans- No Sir
-Judge- he said he didn’t search the phone-
Ques- u agree that in seizing an item such as a phone is different from searching
Ans- yes
Ques- you are familiar with the Telecom Act
Ans- I read it
Ques- it’s part of your clothing at cyber crimes unit
Ans- yes
Ques- Are you familiar with Intercept Act
Ans -yes
Ques-Naturally when these phone brought to you, you asked about the warrant under which they were taken
Ans- no Sir
Que- You know when the police seize a phone they need warrant
Ans- yes Sir
Ques- And sometimes under the Communication Act yo need a court order
Ans – Yes Lawyer (sotto voce) ‘yes, tell you he’s bright’
Ques-In fact Mr. Howard, sometimes to search a phone, you need warrant
Ans- repeat pls
– Lawyer- ”Ooh, u didn’t hear me. Thought my voice echoed”
Ques-Taking a phone is going into people’s privacy
Ques- Warrant necessary in some cases
Ans- Yes, therefore not in others
Ques- In any of these phones do you recall seeing a memory card
Ans- No Sir
Ques-You know what they call SE
Ans- Yes
Ques-In none of those phones you saw any SE
Ans-I cannot answer that
Ques-But because you are so bright and studious you would log SE if you saw it?
Ans- It is not part of my responsibilities to log any such card
Ques-In writing and logging you removed the SIM card from every phone
Ans- No
Ques-Would you have to remove the SIM
Ans- Provided that had a SIM
Ques-So all the SIM you found you removed
Ques- Was the memory card beside the SIM you removed
Ans-Not in all instances
Ques- In those you removed SIM,the memory card was immediately next to SIM
Ans-I would have to see the phones
Ques-The phones you went into, you had warrant to go inside?
Ans- No Sir
Ques-No civilian to double check findings
Ans- No Sir
-Lawyer (sotto voce) ‘oh no’
-Judge cautions counsel about not so sotto voce comment
Ques-Pitt (police who gave Howard items) checked your numbers
Ans – Yes Sir and signed off on them
Ques- Did you ask Pitt where phones were before he brought them to you
Ans – No Sir
Ques- Did you ask how long they had them before they brought them to you
Ans -no
Ques- Did you think that important
Ans- Yes
Ques- But you didn’t ask
Ans- No Sir Lawyer (sotto voce) ‘oh no’
Ques- You thought it was important when you were making your log
Ans – No Sir
Ques- So when then
Ans- Maybe we are not understanding each other
– Lawyer-No further questions-
Case adjourned until 10’00am tomorrow because prosecution had no more witnesses for the day


  1. Kartel lawyers only a mek him look guilty…if the search was illegal etc it would not be admitted into evidence muchless reach court

    1. He Met Met!…*wink*

      These butu liars don’t have no one rass thing good bout dem. Not all things are done by warrent because there’s room for things circumstantial evidence. The phones were on the persons for whom and places that the warrent were issused for so them up fi fair play.

      That likkle bitch lorne tactic is to throw the prosecution witnesses off their game by being an ANNOYING LIKKLE CUNT. Me take offense to that “bright” comment and I hope the jurors are professionals and take offense too.

        1. No met, that line of questioning is important n very relevant. It’s about how the evidence was acquired. Smart lawyering and experienced lawyering too. Memba how Bruce bring manat to challenge how thhe evidence against dudus was acquired? Same kind of thing. To me n you, it might nuh mean much, but in court it can be everything, that could be the whole fuk!n case. And maybe there is a whole lot more evidence to come, but if that judge says strike the info from those phones that were acquired without following the legal protocol, that can damage the case significantly. So lawyer get paid to defend, not lie, that’s experienced cross examination, and they are trying improve evidence tampering by the police, and if they can prove that…..prosecution have a problem. Him ask him bout 2 pieces of legislation…and that’s because they ver often set out the steps that need to be taken before u go search electronic devices for things to be used as evidnce

  2. These lawyers trying desperately to have the judge throw out the phone records because they know it will be the feather that breaks the camel’s back

  3. The witness is the strongest person the prosecutor have. Because all other evidence can have the tendency to get thrown out based on all kind of technicalities. Chain of custody. Hard to prove if phone had not been tampered with etc.

    1. ..and dem nah go get dem way as long as the evidence(s) was handled according to the chain of custody. I smell nothing but desperation and ethic(s) violations on part of the defense.

  4. wow them still cant prove them case . lets see what tomorrow brings . all we seeing right now is mishandling of evidence. how the hell do you hold on to phones for 2 months before turning them in . the way the prosecutor drawing out the case it tell you allot .

  5. So where is this Phantom letter that the witness allegedly wrote stating he was pressured into giving statement and that he saw the victim days after his “death”??

  6. Lawyer trying to twist the Police. The police first have to record receipt of phones. To record the serial number of the phone, you have to open the phone or turn on the phone. if you do either you may need a warrant to go inside the phone.

    Once you do that it also can charge that you tampered wit the phone.

    The eyewitness is the best evidence the prosecutors have. it better them rest the case now

    1. No resting of the case now…betta dem go de full length, so that there is no BUT or What ifs afterwards.

    2. pmrm no no…evidence cannot be thrown out after it has been entered into court and the police specifically said that they dont need a warrant to enter all phones..if u are being investigated for murder on a whole dem nuh need no warrant because everything is taken in is evidence…the lawyers do not have anything substantial and are afraid to ask what was in the phone..if the phone was not allowed in they would have thrown it out before today..remember all evidence has to be presented before the trial begins..

      1. True I don’t need a warrant, but they will need to say what distinguishes one case from the other, why u need a warrant for this one but not that. Miguel lone is no fool, he asked about the mans familiarity with the legislation, u see how hi. Rest quick pon this witness, all the “NO” to his questions from the witness, very imp, damage done to this particular witness. Lorne clearly made his point.

    3. Tech sey him never “search” de phone. Him have rights to the components of said phone when him a do him log. There are more than one way around certain ‘hiccups’ legally.

  7. The judge clearly will have to make a tough decision, do I allow evidence that was gained improperly or do I make a morally correct choice and allow it. ……court house is like Hell to fawt.

    1. If evidence did improper defense should have argued that and have it withheld from the evidence list weeks ago.

      1. Alas, they want to paint a picture in the jury’s mind and infront of the media. Criminals ago roam the streets like wow if these People get off.

      2. As long as the evidence in question is listed on the evidence lit it cannot be taken off before tiral but only during court proceeding by the judge.

        This is called Suppression of evidence which describes the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for many reasons thats if a judge believes that the evidence in question was obtained illegally, he can rule that it not be shown in court. It could also refer to a prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that he or she is legally obligated to show the defense. In the latter case, this would be a violation or this can result in a mistrial in the latter case and the dismissal of the prosecution.

  8. OK. All of us will turn lawyer before the case finish. So the phones and its contests will be shown or the judge can still decide what will be allowed

  9. Everyman has a right to be heard, and to be tire free from bias. Whether we think a man guilty of the crime or not, if in the process there is any evidence of bias against him, they won’t convict. So in court is not what happened(sadly) is what they can prove. It don’t have to be the truth either, but if who bringing the charge cannot prove, it sticky. Let’s pray Justice is served for the victim

  10. Defense winning. Clearly! Kartel wrong but i wont be in denial !
    The pros case weak bad bad bad! all now dem cant prove nothing dem just deh a court a have long conversations. This is such a bore!!!!!!!

  11. Bare f**kery a Gwaan in a this a courthouse yah! If a foreign this wudda dash out longtime or their investigation would’ve been done damn properly to make sure he spends the rest of his days in prison! If him walk a because them Neva spend enough time fi investigate them damn case!

    1. Abroad witnesses aren’t afraid to come foward…that is the big difference. There are countless witnesses to this case, but they are afraid to come forward.

    2. i don’t think so love. see zimmerman do a crime that the whole world know for sure that he was the one do it and he’s not in prison . what we must know now is that the law work for some people better than some.

  12. If the searching of the phones was by not obtaining a court order or a warrant, it may still be allowed into evidence under some circumstances but its up to the prosecution to prove on ground such as:

    Attenuation – If the relationship between the illegality and the nature of the evidence obtained is reduced sufficiently for the evidence to be considered untainted

    Inevitable discovery – if discovery of the evidence was inevitable via purely legal means

    Standing – the violation affects the rights of someone other than the defendant, and the defendant does not have standing to complain

    Good faith – the illegality is not the fault of the law enforcement officers who obtained the evidence, who did so pursuant to a facially valid warrant granted by a neutral and detached magistrate.


  13. Wow, the gaza fans are resurgent……. for how many days they were in hiding all of sudden dem fly out again. …LOL

  14. Defense was privy to evidenciary material prior to admission in court, my take is I hope the judge allows it and doesn’t throw it out, as far as I see it Defense weak God is a fair God Kartel nah walk free

    1. Yes they were very much privy, but they want to cast doubt in the minds of the jury, it’s a scheme well thought of. Will it work only God knows.

  15. If this is the case they have they cannot prove him guilty but assuming it a jury of his peers “dunce” who knows but atm i see Kartel at Sting.

  16. ANYWAY mi wah dem free kartel so some ppl can get dem utilities paid ..internet bill and dem pickney school fee cause it look like Kartel a run bread run dese parts and every man fi eat …cause mi nuh know whey ppl a seh FREE a mussi because it easy fi spell

  17. mI madda sey ebrey poppie show have dem gang..di whole a dem inna gang and a bad and rings go dung everyman stand dem hand and hold it,gang ting a nuh cushion and tears and gunshot and funeral,dis gwaan every day inna jamaica wey man and man fall out inna gang and man get shut wey, a just be caw cartel is a public figure mek dem a gwann so but a grants pen mi grow and mi kno how di ting go a one bag a criminal dem even bigga ford wha lick out pon di man murda nuff a my link dem back inna di years and him a walk roun same way inna town did him big shit belly so dis nuh have nutten fi do wid try FREE easy fi spell dis haffi do wid di injustice system wha a run jamaica all these years a it wi mek a guilty man walk free and a innocent man get lock up and if KARTEL A free a nuh me nor him fans dem ago do it a di same dutty system so talk to mi now.

  18. mi naw back no wrong doer and di whole a dem inna wrongs from yuh a lock gun yuh wi buss it and from yuh a buss it yuh wi shoot people huh badda come pon di stand a gwaan like yuh name ‘saint church’…if di whole a dem fi get f**k well a so it go but if dem fi free up a so it go to…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top