Defence attorney claims Ruddock’s murder confession was coerced

Despite video footage showing murder accused Andre Ruddock comfortably confessing to cutting the throat of 39-year-old Taneka Gardner at Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries in Albion, St James in 2021, defence attorney Anthony Williams tried on Thursday to establish that his client was forced into giving the confession. Videos played in court showed a composed Ruddock at a police station in St James admitting to committing the crime. They also showed him subsequently answering 42 questions during a question and answer session. But Williams suggested that it was while Ruddock was still at the church, and in handcuffs, that he was threatened by a detective to confess. Williams suggested to that detective, who is a witness in Ruddock’s murder trial in the Home Circuit Court in Kingston, that before his client was taken to the police station he was intimidated, draped in his waist by the detective who he also accused of slapping him, “buffing” him in the chest, and forcing him to confess because a judge would be more inclined to believe the lawman over the accused. Williams also insisted that the detective was the one who convinced Ruddock to admit to killing Gardner at the church. Gardner was killed as part of what was said to have been human sacrifice ritual. The detective corporal, who a constable at the time of the incident, rejected all of Williams’s suggestions. Williams further tried to make his point by highlighting to the detective that before the caution statement which his client gave at the police station, in which he confessed to the killing, he was entitled to privacy with two justices of the peace before any recording of any form of statement took place. Williams pointed out that the video recordings showed Ruddock being spoken to by two justices of the peace before the caution statement and the question and answer session were recorded. The attorney insisted that that should not have happened, pointing out that the video and audio recording should have taken place only after the private conversation between Ruddock and the two justices of the peace. Williams asked the witness if it was proper protocol for a suspect to be privately interviewed by a justice of the peace or their attorney without being taped. “Yes, after they are allowed their private time, they would indicate to us when they are finished,” the detective replied. Williams asked if it was correct for him to say that the two justices of the peace indicated to him and a detective sergeant at the time that they needed a private moment with the suspect. “Yes,” the witness responded. “After they told you that they needed a private moment, where did you and Detective Sergeant Bond go?” Williams asked. “We went outside and closed the door,” the witness replied. Williams continued his cross-examination, asking the witness if the recorder was on or off when both of them went outside. The detective admitted that the recording device was on and rolling. “When you say the camera was on, does that mean it would capture the audio as well?” Williams asked. “Yes it would,” the witness answered. Williams probed whether the detective agreed that he breached Ruddock’s right to privacy with the justices of the peace. “I don’t know if I would agree with you,” the detective said. Williams asked him if he would be correct to say that he and the other detective deliberately left the camera on. “No I did not. I thought the justices and Andre Ruddock would have spoken already,” the detective said. Williams asked him if he was a skilled policeman trained in video recording of caution statements and question and answer sessions. The detective said, “Yes.” The attorney then followed up, asking: “You remember you told the prosecutor that you were satisfied that the video camera was working and you did tests to ensure it was working properly?” “Yes,” the detective responded. Williams then asked him if it was his duty and responsibility to ensure that before he left the room the video and audio were off. “I did not see it as an issue at the time,” the witness said. Williams asked him if Ruddock or any other suspect was to have privacy, why he did not see it as an issue to have the camera and the audio rolling. “We did not go back to rewatch what was happening. We simply continued the procedure,” the detective responded. The attorney asked the detective if the motto of the Jamaica Constabulary Force outlined that the police must serve, protect and reassure. The detective agreed that that was part of the motto. The attorney asked him if he agreed that when he left the camera on, capturing the private session with the two justices of the peace, he was breaching the motto of the police force; however, the detective did not see how it amounted to a breach. Trial Judge Leighton Pusey instructed Williams to stick to questions that were factual and grounded in law. The trial resumes on Tuesday.