The credibility of a senior police investigator came under further strain in the Klansman gang trial last Friday, as defence attorneys pressed him about inconsistencies in his claimed recollection and gaps in his investigation.
The detective sergeant is giving evidence in relation to the August 14, 2017 murder of Kevin Green and the wounding with intent of another man on Ripon Road in St. Andrew.
Robian Williams reports.
Defence attorney, Denise Hinson, questioned both the memory of the detective and the steps taken during the investigation.
The witness acknowledged that he attempted to locate his original 2017 statement at the registry sometime late last year or early this year, after being requested to do so.
But he said he could not recall exactly when the request was made or when he prepared his more recent statement in January 2026.
The witness also admitted he was not permitted to review the original case file he had submitted, raising further questions about how he reconstructed his account years later.
Hinson challenged the detective’s recollection of key events on the night of the incident, including whether another policeman accompanied him to the Kingston Public Hospital and whether he spoke to an injured man there.
The incident in question is the August 14, 2017 shooting that left Kevin Green and another man injured.
The detective maintained that, to the best of his recollection, the other policeman was present and he did speak with the injured man. He rejected multiple suggestions from the defence that those events did not occur.
The defence also disputed the witness’ earlier testimony that he received a driver’s licence from a first responder at the scene of the shooting. Hinson suggested that no such item were handed over. She went further, questioning the licence was not treated as evidentiary material.
The witness conceded that he could not recall photographing the document before passing it on to a relative of the deceased.
Further scrutiny was placed on the basis of the his 2026 statement.
While he had previously indicated it was based largely on memory, the detective clarified under questioning that it was aided by diary entries and copies of initial reports.
Hinson challenged that assertion, asking why his memory appeared unreliable when pressed on specific details in court.
The detective also acknowledged that he did not interview any suspects, did not collect video footage, and could not recall whether he personally obtained ballistic reports.
Although he said efforts were made to check for surveillance cameras in the area, including near a nearby establishment, he could not remember whether those efforts were documented in his statements.
At one point, Hinson accused the witness of lying about his ability to recall events from 2017.
She said, “It is absolutely a blatant lie when you told this court that you’re able to remember most from memory.”
The witness rejected the accusation, responding, “I do disagree with you.”
The trial continues in the Supreme Court on Monday.
