Orvin Kevin Roberts, who is accused of murdering 84-year-old drugstore owner Harold Rachpaul, yesterday professed his innocence when given a chance to lead his defence at the close of the prosecution’s case.
Opting to lead his defence in unsworn testimony from the prisoner’s dock, the man declared, “I am innocent of this offence.”
Roberts is on trial for the murder before Justice Navindra Singh and a 12-member jury at the High Court in Georgetown. The allegation against him is that between August 18 and 19, 2011, he murdered the octogenarian in the course or furtherance of a burglary.
He has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The accused said that on February 26, 2014 while effecting repairs on his mother’s minibus at a tarmac area in Sophia, he was approached by a van load of police officers, one of whom informed him that he was needed at the station.
According to Roberts, the officer told him that there was an allegation against him. He said that when he enquired what the allegation was about, he was told by the officer that he would find out after arriving at the station.
He said the lawmen carried out a search on him and found a minibus key and $100,000 which he had in his possession. Roberts told the court that his aunt had given him the money to purchase parts for the vehicle.
According to the accused, before he could explain to the police how he had gotten the money, the one who arrested him exclaimed, “is thiefing money.”
Roberts said that he was then taken to Police Headquarters, Eve Leary, where he was handed over to an officer whose name he give as “Caesar.” According to him, Caesar began questioning him as to whether he knew about an incident which occurred at 74 Robb Street, to which he responded no.
“No Sir, I don’t know anything you talking about,” he said he told Caesar.
The accused told the court that Caesar then informed him that he (Caesar), had everything he wanted to hear already, and that he (Roberts) knew who had committed the offence and should reveal who.
The accused said that he again told Caesar he had no knowledge of what he was speaking about. Roberts said Caesar told him that he was being stubborn by not telling him what he wanted to hear.
Roberts said that after he told Caesar he had no knowledge of what he was talking about, Caesar told him he will make him “pay.”
Roberts said he was then handed over to another officer whom he identified as “Alexis” to be profiled and have his fingerprints taken. He said that at the fingerprinting department, he wiped his hands after being instructed to so do, before his prints were taken.
Roberts said that after giving his prints, Caesar approached, requesting to see the form on which the prints were deposited. Holding it up to the light, Roberts said that Caesar began using insulting words to Alexis that even after being in the police for a long time, he did not know how to take proper fingerprints.
According to Roberts, it was at that point that Caesar instructed an officer “Roopnarine” to take his fingerprints again. He said that Caesar and Alexis then left with the first set of prints that had been taken.
“I was so confused and foolish at the said time—I din thinking, and so I allowed him to take another fingerprint from me,” the accused said.
He said he was again approached by Caesar who enquired, “boy yuh gon tell me is who do this ting or not?” but he again told him that he did not know.
Roberts told the court that on March 3, he was then approached by Roopnarine who told him, “yuh know yuh fingers get match to the crime scene on Robb Street?” The accused said he told Roopnarine that he had to be lying as “I was not there and it couldn’t be my fingerprint.”
He said Roopnarine then informed him that he would be charged and that he needed to prepare for court the following day.
“Sir, I’m innocent of this offence. I told him (Roopnarine), that at the time of that offence I was in the interior. I normally work bus, and when that gets hard, I go into the interior,” Roberts told Justice Singh.
In his closing address to the jury, defence attorney Nigel Hughes questioned the merit of the police’s claim of his client being wanted for the murder which occurred since 2011—yet the Force issued no wanted bulletins.
Counsel asked the jury to consider whether it made sense that his client would casually be at the Sophia location where he was arrested, and not in hiding.
He also called on the jury to question the reason investigators did not properly investigate two of the “obvious suspects,” Leonard and Vincent Rachpaul—son and grandson respectively of the deceased.
Hughes lambasted the Guyana Police Force over the standard of its investigations which he said was deficient of basic routine police procedures. Hughes advanced that it would take a “class Z dunce police,” not to have asked the Rachpauls basic questions which would have properly eliminated them as suspects.
Counsel had repeatedly highlighted the testimony of Leonard and Vincent Rachpaul and police witnesses that there had been no breakage or forced entry at the murder scene. In those circumstances coupled with the fact that Leonard and Vincent Rachpaul had access to Rachpaul’s home, and knew the dogs, the police should have properly investigated them.
Both Leonard and Vincent worked in the drugstore with Rachpaul.
For its part, the prosecution, led by state attorney Narissa Leander, asked the jury in her closing address to find the accused guilty as charged. She stressed that the evidence the state had against Roberts is “cogent, compelling and convincing,” in that his fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime.
The prosecution closed its case after calling nine of the 11 witnesses it had initially planned to call. Leander explained to the court that efforts to contact the other two witnesses proved futile.
The trial continues this morning at 9, when Justice Singh will sum-up the case, before handing it over to the jury for deliberation and the return of a verdict.
