-accomplice in Bel Air heist
Rabindranauth Seemangal, who admitted his involvement in the July 12, 2011 Bel Air heist, yesterday testified in court that he and his former co-defendants were told by Chandraradha Rampersaud to scare businessman Malcolm Panday’s children or kill him if necessary to get the money.
Seemangal is serving an eight-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to his part in the robbery, for which Rampersaud, Hardat Kumar, Jermaine Mitchell, Rayon Jones and Aubrey Simon are on trial. They are accused of robbing Panday’s partner, Annie Ramsood—Rampersaud’s daughter—of local and foreign currency amounting to over $7M.
Seemangal was scheduled to testify on behalf of the prosecution on Monday but attorney Omeyana Hamilton had registered an objection on behalf of absent attorney Michael Somersall, which saw the case being adjourned to yesterday’s date. Somersall, in giving the grounds for the objection, recalled a previous complaint to the court by fellow defence lawyer Randolph Kirton, who had expressed his concern about possible witness tampering as a result of an out-of-court conversation between Seemangal, special prosecutor Glenn Hanoman and Panday.
Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry, however, permitted Seemangal’s testimony and the witness assured the court that at no time was he threatened or promised anything to give evidence against the defendants. “I just feel that I should speak the truth and be right with God; it’s not fair for me to tell the truth and serve my time and others do not,” Seemangal noted. “Mitchell and me robbed the people dem and Aubrey Simon did carry us to do the robbery with the car, so that we could come out and get away,” he added.
On the morning of the robbery, Seemangal recounted, Kumar contacted him and invited him to have drink at a bar in Sheriff Street. At the bar, he said, Kumar introduced him to Mitchell and Simon. “Hardat seh all we got to do is go in the yard and ask for Panday and when they open the door, Jermaine gon go in with the gun and rob dem, Hardat tell we that he can’t go in the house ‘cause he and dem is family and he aunt does wuk deh at the people place’”, he recalled.
Seemangal said that he knew the man’s aunt prior to the robbery because of regular visits to her home. He also noted that the woman was to call and tell them when to rob the Panday family.
He recalled Kumar receiving a call from her during their meeting and he answered, told them it was his aunt and put her on speakerphone when Simon asked her to identify herself.
Attorney Hamilton objected to Seemangal’s statement as “hearsay,” further noting that the court could not determine who the person was on the phone. Hanoman, however, said that he did not see a reason for the objection, while adding that the witness did not identify the woman on the phone.
Seemangal continued his testimony, saying that the voice he heard over the phone was familiar and that he had heard it about three times before, including on two occasions when Kumar’s aunt was talking to her sister.
Hanoman asked the witness to identify the person that he heard and Seemangal pointed out Rampersaud. Hanoman then asked Seemangal where else he had heard the voice on the phone and the witness recalled hearing her voice at a wake to which Kumar had invited him. He said he heard Rampersaud speaking while she was serving coffee to a guest and while also speaking to her sister.
Somersall objected as he accused Hanoman of providing the witness with leading questions. He asked that Hanoman allow the witness to give his statement without questioning.
Hanoman said that he failed to see what leading questions he provided to Seemangal and Hamilton said that he was creating a nexus and not giving the witness the opportunity to give his statement.
Hanoman then asked Seemangal to identify the person who he heard at the wake. Seemangal again identified Rampersaud as the person he heard, prompting another objection by Hamilton, who challenged whether he could recognise and identify Rampersaud by her voice and over the phone.
Hanoman, in response, said that Hamilton is entitled to have her objections but they ought to be based on legal grounds.
Seemangal, who was asked to continue by the magistrate, recounted Rampersaud’s instructions to them. “She seh over the phone that they got a man that short and fair skin and Panday and he wife deh home with the two children along with two girls who staying there. ‘All you got to do is frighten de children and he gon give ya de money; but if he play de fool kill he,’” he recalled.
He said that when Kumar came off the phone, he along with Mitchell and Simon entered a white car driven by Simon. He said he saw Mitchell with a gun in his hand and he became scared and wanted to leave the vehicle “But I was already in it and I know if I didn’t continue they woulda eventually kill me,” he said, while adding that he was very sorry for the whole thing. “I had two kids at the time,” he added.
After the robbery, Seemangal said he realised that Rampersaud was no longer employed with Panday. “They fooled me. All the time I was thinking that she does work there,” he said.
During her cross-examination, which will continue when the trial resumes on November 6, Hamilton suggested to Seemangal that he fabricated his testimony to the court.
He responded “no,” saying he was telling the truth. The lawyer repeated her assertion, suggesting that he fabricated the story with the intent to bring the others to prison.
Seemangal then said that he did not fabricate the story, but his intention was to see the others go to prison. She suggested to him that he gave more than one version of the story to the court. He, however, said that all versions were true.
Hamilton suggested to him that he lied to the police that he was forced with a gun to commit the robbery. He said that he could not remember saying that.
Hamilton reserved her remaining questions for the next trial date.
