Keith Clarke fired at soldiers, mistaking them for gunmen – widow

Keith Clarke had unknowingly fired at members of the security forces on the night he was shot and killed in May 2010, his widow, Dr Claudette Clarke, has claimed.

At the same time, the 65-year-old widow, who is giving testimony in the Home Circuit where soldiers Corporal Odel Buckley, Lance Corporal Greg Tinglin and Private Arnold Henry are being tried for Clarke’s murder, said she did not see her husband firing but assumed that he did.

She also indicated further during cross-examination from King’s Counsel Valerie Neita-Robertson that during the incident, she had called her neighbour and asked who was outside and was told that it appeared to be police and soldiers.

When asked if she had informed her husband and if she was hiding information, she broke down into tears saying, “I have nothing to hide.”

Following a short break for her to compose herself, the witness said she told her husband that her neighbour told her that it seemed like police and soldiers were outside and he told her to go into the bathroom.

She also claimed her husband had told her to call 119 because he did not hear any announcement, and that normally, that is not how police and soldiers operate.

The 63-year-old businessman was shot 21 times inside his bedroom at Kirkland Close in St Andrew, on March 27, 2010, during a police-military operation to apprehend then-fugitive drug lord Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke.

“My husband used his licensed firearm and returned fire in defence of his family and property, but was unable to withstand the sustained assault of the masked men shooting on our home with powerful high-powered weapons,” the trial heard yesterday that Dr Clarke said in an affidavit.

However, under cross-examination and in response to Neita-Robertson questioning whether she had said those words, the witness replied, “Madam, I said that because at the time we did not know who was outside attacking the house, so he was defending his family.”

Earlier, Dr Clarke said she did not remember saying those words, but later accepted after being shown the document.

“So you were aware that your husband returned fire in defence of his family and property?” Neita-Robertson asked.

BALLISTIC REPORT

In an attempt to answer, Dr Clarke indicated that she was inside the bathroom when her husband went outside and that, at a previous hearing, someone had mentioned a ballistic report.

Neita-Robertson, however, interrupted, pressing her to answer the question. It was then that she indicated she did not witness him firing his weapon and had only assumed.

“So you lied on your husband, you lied on him?” the lawyer asked while adding that Dr Clarke had also told her colleague, Peter Champagnie, the same thing in the preliminary hearing in February.

The lawyer was about to read what the witness had said in the preliminary hearing when prosecutor Latoya Bernard objected, stating that the contents could not be read, as it was not in evidence and had not been agreed. Both parties later indicated that they would agree on the document shortly before the trial was adjourned until Monday due to two of the jurors having matters to deal with.

Earlier, during cross-examination, the witness was also asked if she had said in an affidavit that she was reliably told by an informant that the security forces had carried out an operation near her family’s home at the premises of well-known Tivoli Gardens-based businessman Justice Ogilvie.

However, Dr Clarke said she did not say those words, noting that she had indicated that she heard it on the news.

Pressed further about those remarks, Dr Clarke insisted that she heard it on the news but, after requesting to see the document, agreed that she had given that statement and had signed it before a justice of the peace.

While agreeing that she did not make any reference about the news in her statement, Dr Clarke maintained that she was reliably informed by the news.

Neita-Robertson suggested she was not speaking the truth but she denied it.

“ You are calling the news a reliable informant?” Neita Robertson asked.

“ But that’s where you get information from, madam. I listen to the news every day,” the witness said.

“Clever, but not quite so,” Neita-Robertson quipped, to which Dr Clarke replied, “No madam, that is you.”

Clarke reiterated she heard it on the television news that it was his house that they were looking for while pointing out that she did not want to call anyone’s names and asked for understanding.

Asked why she was concerned, Dr Clarke said, “Because it is not a person I would want to know anything about and even now I am still being very careful because I am concerned for my person.”

She denied knowing Ogilvie or ever meeting him while still insisting that whatever information she knew about Ogilvie was obtained from the news.

In the meanwhile, Dr Clarke said she did not know of her husband doing private accounting work for private companies except for two companies where he was employed.

She also said she did not know of him working for Coke’s company.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com