by Roy Davis (freelance reporter)
BELIZE CITY, Wed. Dec. 6, 2023
In a decision he handed down today, Justice Nigel Pilgrim has allowed a statement by Giovanni Ramirez, implicating attorney Oscar Selgado as the person who wanted him to kill Marilyn Barnes, an elderly woman who had made allegations of a sexual offence involving a male minor, against Selgado.
Selgado was indicted on a charge of abetment to murder, following Ramirez’s statement that he gave to the police. Ramirez made it quite clear, via three-way conversations he had with Police Commissioner Chester Williams and the Director of Public Prosecution Cheryl Lynn Vidal, that he was not going to testify because he feared for his life. He said that Selgado has threatened to have him killed if he gives oral testimony.
As a result, the Crown, represented by the DPP, made an application to the court for Ramirez’s hearsay statement to be admitted as evidence, and a voire dire was held to determine its admissibility.
The Crown’s case was that Ramirez did not want to testify because he feared for his life, and it was with justification because Ramirez had reneged on carrying out the job to kill Barnes, and he had used secret recordings of his conversations with Selgado to blackmail Selgado.
The court found that Commissioner Williams was a credible witness when he testified that he recorded two of three conversations he had with Ramirez, which included the DPP, in which Ramirez said that he will not testify because he feared that he would be killed.
The defence, represented by attorney Adolph Lucas, Sr., contended that Ramirez’s statement should not be admitted as evidence because it would be prejudicial to the accused, since Ramirez would not be subjected to cross examination.
Selgado testified and denied everything that was in Ramirez’s statement. He said under oath that he doesn’t know anyone by the name of Ramirez. But the court rejected Selgado’s testimony entirely because there were some implausible features of his testimony. It was the finding of the court that it was implausible that the accused did not read his disclosure until just before the start of the trial, and that he did not read his disclosure at the preliminary inquiry to know what was the evidence against him. The court also found an inconsistency in the evidence the accused gave when he said he was never a defendant in a civil proceeding in an attempt to boost his credibility. There was evidence that he was the defendant in a civil matter with Edward Broaster.
The court also found that Ramirez could not have known certain things that were in his statement if he did not interact with the accused.
The alleged conversations Ramirez had with the accused began on February 6, 2019.
The trial proper was adjourned until December 19.