|
Convicted
killer Shawn Parris is escorted to the San Fernando court
yesterday, on day eight of the Dr Chandra Naraynsingh murder
trial. Photo: Sookdeo Baney
BY
RESHMA RAGOONATH
Convicted killer Shawn Parris testified yesterday that Dr
Chandra Naraynsingh was involved in an extramarital affair
with a medical practitioner at the time of her death in 1994.
Parris said this under cross-examination by Karl Hudson-Phillips,
QC, on day eight of the murder trial in the San Fernando First
Criminal Court, in which schoolteacher Seeromani Maraj-Naraynsingh
and Elton Ramasir are jointly charged with Chandra’s
June 29, 1994, murder.
Hudson-Phillips, who leads Maraj-Naraynsingh’s defence
team, which includes Ravi Rajcoomar and Prakash Ramadhar,
was cross-examining the State’s star witness when Parris
said he was told that Chandra was having an affair with a
“Dr Bissoondath.”
Chandra was shot and killed by Parris on June 29, 1994, at
the Langmore Health Foundation, Palmyra.
The attorney, in questioning Parris on the first statement
he gave to police on his return from the United States in
2001, asked, “You said in your statement Mrs Naraynsingh
was having an affair with Jenny Sharma sister’s husband?”
Parris replied, “Yes, sir.”
The QC asked, “That is Dr Bissoondath?”
“Yes,
sir,” said Parris.
“So
you are suggesting that the deceased was having an affair
with Dr Bissoondath?” he said, to which Parris said yes.
“So
you know she was having an affair with Jenny’s brother-in-law?”
the QC asked.
Parris said he did.
“That
is ‘Neck’ sister?” asked Hudson- Phillips,
to which Parris again replied yes.
The attorney pressed Parris, asking him “They are San
Fernando people?”
“Yes,”
Parris replied.
Hudson-Phillips said as San Fernando people, one would expect
them to know San Fernando, where Green Acres and Ste Madeleine
was located.
Parris countered, “I wouldn’t say so.”
“So
if they are south people they wouldn’t know about these
places?” asked the QC.
“I
am from south and there are places I do not know about,”
said Parris.
The contract killer also said he did not think Bissoondath
was married at the time.
He denied telling Asst Commissioner James Philbert, in a 2004
letter, that Bissoondath was having a relationship with Jenny’s
sister in 1994.
Hudson-Phillips yesterday described Parris’ evidence
as a “ruse” and “total fabrication” for
him to “get away” from the 30-year sentence he is
now serving.
Parris is serving time at the Maximum Security Prison for
unlawfully killing Chandra on June 29, 1994. He pleaded guilty
to the lesser charge of manslaughter.
Hudson-Phillips, before the 12-member jury, put it to Parris
that his testimony was to “get away” with Chandra’s
killing.
“Only
people with money and connections could do that, sir,”
Parris replied.
In his close to two-hour cross-examination, Hudson-Phillips
suggested that state witness Junior Morris wrote to Parris
“manufacturing the case” against Maraj-Naraynsingh
and Ramasir.
“That
wouldn’t be true, sir. We were both in different prisons
and had no communication,” Parris said.
The QC also cross-examined Parris on letters he sent to the
Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson and ACP
Philbert expressing displeasure over his 30-year sentence.
The attorney suggested Parris’ appeal of his sentence
and conviction, which is pending in the Privy Council, was
an attempt to escape the consequences of his actions.
But Parris said his appeal was “my rights.”
In response to Hudson-Phillips’ suggestion that his testimony
was total fabrication, Parris said, “If I were to have
other accused persons standing in that (prisoners’) box,
then that would be a fabrication.”
Parris also mentioned a second statement he gave to PC Wayne
Dick, in which he claimed he had mentioned Maraj-Naraynsingh’s
name.
However, special prosecutor Dana Seetahal, who leads the prosecution
team, including deputy DPP Carla Browne-Antoine, Narissa Ramsundar
and Nigel Pilgrim, said the State did not have any second
statement.
This led to an exchange between Seetahal, judge Herbert Volney
and Hudson-Phillips.
Volney said the statement should be produced, as it could
have material to assist both the prosecution and defence.
But the prosecutor indicated that on Thursday, she told the
court she had no statement from Dick.
Former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, who leads
Ramasir’s defence team, which includes attorney Larry
Lalla, also began his cross-examination of Parris yesterday.
Maharaj stumped Parris with his first question, which was
if the contract killer knew the difference between the truth
and a lie.
Parris responded, “I don’t understand the question.”
The trial continues on Monday.
|
