Wayne Pierre

Wayne Pierre, alias Ninja, was described by the prosecution as the leader of the gang which kidnapped and killed US citizen, Balram ‘Balo’ Maharaj. Not so, says his Washington-based attorney, John Carney. In his opening address to the jury in Washington DC, Carney said there was nothing to link Pierre with the kidnapping of the 62-year-old Trinidadian. Maharaj was kidnapped from the Samaan Tree Bar, Aranquez, on April 6, 2005, but his remains were not found until January 8, 2006 in a shallow grave in the Santa Cruz forest. Pierre was one of the seven Trinidadians found guilty of hostage-taking on July 31, and will be sentenced on February 12, next year. Carney said his client had no training or skills. “What you’re going to find is that is a very significant factor, because the Government started out telling you that Mr Pierre, this is her words, running the whole show, from start to finish. “Keep that factor in mind. This is the Government’s theory. From start to finish in this hostage-taking charge, that Wayne Pierre was a leader, planning the operation of this charge in this case.

“You’ll find out also that Wayne Pierre comes from a extended family. He has four brothers and four sisters in Trinidad. We’re hopeful that you’ll be able to hear from his sister, Wendy Pierre, in this case, and perhaps from the mother of his son. “Wayne Pierre has lived all his life in Trinidad. He was plucked from Trinidad, brought here to stand trial. “Now, with regard to the witnesses in this case and when they testify, treat them as if you would want people that maybe you know would be treated in a foreign jurisdiction in a similar type proceeding - patience.” Carney said Pierre has denied he was involved in any conspiracy or hostage-taking. “Now, in this case of alleged conspiracy, alleged hostage-taking, Mr Pierre states he is not a member of any conspiracy, that he did not participate in any hostage-taking.

“The Government has explained to you that it is going to submit certain forms of evidence, and I’m going to go through that with you a little bit, not in as great detail as the Government has, and the reason for that is because it has the burden of proof. “It must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Pierre is in fact guilty of the charges in this case.” The Washington attorney said nearly everyone in the case had a nickname. “For example, they mentioned Mr Nixon as Shaka. They mentioned Mr Straker as Andy. You’re going to hear that some of the cooperating witnesses that testify have also nicknames, such as Russel Joseph as Saucy. “You’re going to hear Percival as Soldier. But again, the fact that they have nicknames, just like an actor or actress, it doesn’t mean much. “You should also consider that with respect to these charges, that among the other forms of evidence that they’re going to submit are cell phone records.

“You’re going to find that Mr Pierre had no phone calls in terms of cell phone records that they’re going to introduce. “This is a theme that Mr (Steven) Kiersh has set forth to you, that there’s a lack of evidence, and that’s something you can understand in this case, that if there’s a lack of evidence, that’s something for you to consider. “You’re going to find other forms of evidence in terms of physical evidence. You’re not going to be presented with DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence relating to Mr Pierre.
“None of that exists in this case. You’re not going to have evidence of search warrants where guns were recovered. No guns were recovered from Mr Pierre in this case. “You’re going to go through other types of evidence including, as the government said, civilian and also cooperating witnesses.

“With respect to the civilian witnesses, you’re going to find that not one of these civilian witnesses on any of what the Government has called other crimes evidence, is going to stand up here and identify Mr Pierre as being involved in anything else. “The Government also recites to you that there are confessions. Mr Pierre made no such confession about anything. You will also hear about witnesses. “Now, with respect to the witnesses in this case, we have the contention that the witnesses have plea agreements. With respect to these plea agreements, there’s a requirement that they provide substantial assistance. “When these witnesses will be asked about what that means, none of them will be able to exactly tell you what that means in their mind, but they know it means something to them. “But in this case it’s going to come down to witnesses, and I ask that you keep one last thing in mind with respect to them. “Anybody can say anything about anyone, but it doesn’t necessarily make it true. Keep that principle in mind as you listen to the witnesses in this case,” Carney added.

TOMORROW: A bushman presents his case