By Nico Scavella
A CROWN prosecutor yesterday claimed a young man ordered someone to shoot him last year because of his role in having one of the man’s friends convicted of a crime.
Joel Seymour, taking the witness stand, claimed Daltino Thurston ordered an unknown man to shoot him for successfully prosecuting an armed robbery case against Javon Alexander Rolle.
Mr Seymour claimed the man who was given the orders could be seen on surveillance footage played in court, removing an alleged firearm from his waist and placing it in the front of his pants.
Mr Seymour also claimed that Thurston’s younger brother, George Rahming, stabbed him in his head with a knife during the encounter. He claimed Rahming could also be seen on the surveillance footage video closing what he suggested was a switchblade.
Despite Mr Seymour’s claims that he was “stabbed”, Dr Leonardo Culmer, an emergency room physician at Doctors Hospital, said Mr Seymour only suffered a “minor” injury from the incident in question, where stitches were not warranted.
Additionally, defence attorney Ramona Farquharson-Seymour observed that the wound was so small the investigators had to “come right up” to his head with their camera lenses to capture a photograph of the injury.
Mrs Farquharson-Seymour suggested that what injured Mr Seymour was not a knife, but rather a ring Rahming was wearing at the time.
In any event, Mrs Farquharson-Seymour asserted that Mr Seymour being the “aggressor” in the incident was what caused him to receive the injury. She said had he gone to the police instead of confronting the man whom he claimed ordered others to shoot and stab him, namely Thurston, Rahming would not have struck him in his brother’s defence.
The evidence was given during the trial before Magistrate Kara Turnquest-Deveaux concerning allegations that Thurston and Rahming attacked and injured Mr Seymour on January 5, 2019.
The pair also face obstruction of justice charges. Both men have denied the charges.
According to the evidence, the incident in question technically has its origins in an armed robbery trial against Rolle before Justice Renae McKay that Mr Seymour successfully prosecuted in December 2018. Thurston was Rolle’s alibi witness during the trial, and was also good friends with Rolle, who was at the time engaged to one of Thurston’s cousins.
The alleged attack occurred around 10.30pm on January 5, 2019, when Mr Seymour went to the K-Souse restaurant on Baillou Hill Road to get some food, where he encountered Thurston.
During cross-examination yesterday, however, Mr Seymour’s statements to police became a hot-button issue, as Mrs Farquharson-Seymour noted the two statements paint two different pictures.
Mr Seymour asserted that while giving the initial statement to police, he was “in and out” due to him having been struck in the head and consequently receiving medication. As such, he claimed he was merely trying to give police as best a recollection of the events he possibly could under the circumstances.
However, Mrs Farquharson-Seymour noted that despite Mr Seymour’s claims that he was out of it that night at the hospital, he was still able to recall such “meticulous details” such as where Thurston lives (on Mackey Street according to his statement); the exact height, weight and age of the person who struck him; and Rolle being convicted of armed robbery, but required to return to court on January 31, 2019 for sentencing.
Additionally, Dr Culmer testified that although Mr Seymour appeared to be “very mad” when he arrived at the hospital that night, the prosecutor was aware of what was happening at the time.
Nonetheless, Mr Seymour said while he was on sick leave, he typed up a second statement for the police; however, he said he didn’t actually sign it until February 8. However, Mr Seymour maintained that out of those two statements, the latter statement is more accurate, as it was written while his mind was “lucid”.
He asserted that a lot of what was contained in the initial statement, particularly the specific details, were not provided by him, and that the police instead must have “put that in there themselves”.
The case continues.