Ex-cop 'admitted in interview' to sex with teenage girl

Tue, Feb 16th 2016, 01:07 PM

EDMUND Lewis Jr allegedly admitted, in his record of interview with police, to filming his sexual encounters with a teenage girl he had met in September 2014, a magistrate was told yesterday. However, the accused allegedly said he thought the girl was older than 17 and she consented to being filmed.

However, the admissibility of the document was challenged by the former police constable’s lead lawyer, Wayne Munroe, QC, who argued that not only had his client been under duress when questioned by the senior police officer, but he had also been recovering from a physical attack that required him to receive medication after being discharged from hospital.

Lewis Jr. is on trial before Magistrate Andrew Forbes concerning allegations that he produced child pornography videos between July 2014 and January 21, 2015.

Ryszard Humes is assisting Mr Munroe in Lewis Jr’s defence.

Darell Taylor is prosecuting the case for the Office of The Attorney General.

Ms. Taylor called head of the High-Tech Crime Unit, ASP Mark Barrett to the witness stand and he recalled information being given to him on January 22, 2015 while at the Central Detective Unit.

“As a result of that information, I later saw (the complainant) age 17 years in the presence of her mother. She went on to give me certain information and a statement was recorded from her,” the investigator said.

“On Friday, January 23, 2015 around 12pm, I was on duty at CDU when I saw Mr. Edmund Lewis Jr. at my office. There I questioned him in the presence of his attorney and his brother, also a police officer.”

“I asked him if he was ok he said yes,” the court was told.

“What, if anything, did you then do?” Ms. Taylor asked.

“I told him it was my intention of bringing clarity to the matter and conducting a search of his residence. I left my office on inquiries with the defendant along with D/Sgt. 2248 Smith and D/Cpl. 2548 Rutherford armed with a search warrant,” ASP Barrett said.

The senior detective said upon arrival to the Blair Estates home of the accused, they were met by the housekeeper and allowed entry. He said the defendant’s bedroom was pointed out to him.

“I instructed Rutherford to photograph the room. A search was conducted but nothing of evidential value was located,” ASP Barrett said.

Further information received at the residence led the officer to caution and arrest the accused concerning the matter in question.

ASP Barrett said Lewis Jr. was booked into the Wulff Road police station before being transported to CDU.

The officer said Lewis Jr. was interviewed under caution in the presence of his then-lawyer Yolanda Rolle where he was asked a series of questions.

“At no time during the interview or my interaction with the defendant did I or anyone in my presence use any force or duress to obtain information from him,” the witness said.

The written document of the interview was shown to ASP Barrett, but Mr Munroe reiterated his objection on the admissibility of the document. The record of interview was marked for identification until the court’s ruling on the admissibility. The contents of the document were read aloud for the record.

According to the document, Lewis Jr. was allegedly asked by the senior officer about allegations that he secretly filmed his sexual interaction with the complainant in the matter.

“In regards to that, I have nothing to say other than that the girl was above 17,” was Lewis Jr.’s alleged answer at the time.

He denied soliciting anyone or secretly filming sex.

“Everything was consensual,” Lewis Jr. added.

ASP Barrett asked the accused when the sexual interactions between the two began and Lewis Jr. reportedly said September. He allegedly said he recorded the interactions on his Samsung Galaxy S2 cellular phone.

“How many times did you record? Was she aware?” Lewis was asked. The accused allegedly said twice and that the complainant was indeed aware.

ASP Barrett asked where the sexual interactions had occurred.

“My room,” Lewis Jr. answered.

ASP Barrett asked the accused why did he film their encounters.

“We both agreed to it and it was fun,” the accused allegedly told police, admitting that it was for sexual gratification.

“Was anyone else involved?” the investigator asked.

Lewis Jr. said there was a 19-year-old whom he had met sometime in October and had sex with both females. However, he denied filming the acts without their permission.

“What did you do with the contents?” the investigator asked.

“I took the chip out of the phone and secured it,” the accused said.

ASP Barrett told the court the accused appeared to have read over the interview documents, which he signed. However, Lewis Jr. declined to give a written statement explaining the events.

Prosecutor Taylor asked for the video of the interview to be shown. However, Mr. Munroe again objected to the admissibility of the contents on the basis that the interview occurred under duress and that his client was on medication at the time.

Following legal arguments in the absence of the senior detective, ASP Barrett was recalled for further questioning.

“What, if anything, transpired when you spoke with the virtual complainant?” the prosecutor asked.

“At the time, she appeared to be distraught, in my view. She was very emotional and was very adamant that she wished to proceed with this matter,” the witness said.

ASP Barrett said a check of the complainant’s cell phone produced two video clips of the complainant engaged in sexual intercourse.

Mr. Munroe, in objecting, asked: “Is this something that’s going to be produced? Because it would then qualify as a document based on the Evidence Act. And there’s been no disclosure.”

After further legal discussions in the witness’ absence, ASP Barrett was again recalled to resume testimony.

The court heard that the first clip appeared to be the complainant and Lewis Jr. The second appeared to be the complainant, another female and an unidentified male.

“A statement was recorded from her. She then was given the original copy of a CD that was burned. She and her mother signed and I signed the same,” ASP Barrett said.

The prosecutor asked for the videos to be shown but Mr. Munroe had an issue with this.

In cross-examination, Mr. Munroe asked the investigator if Yolanda Rolle was a practicing criminal attorney at the time of the interview.

“I don’t know. She presented herself as his (the accused’s) attorney,” ASP Barrett said.

ASP Barrett did admit, however, that Ms. Rolle was not a familiar legal face at CDU and that him asking Lewis Jr. if he was physically okay was not documented or recorded.

“You told him he was there to work this out?” Mr. Munroe asked.

“I never said ‘work this out,’” ASP Barrett said.

“So you gave him the standard caution?” Mr. Munroe asked. The senior detective said he did.

Mr. Munroe asked the witness if he was aware of another woman’s statement to police. The senior detective said he was.

“And you’re aware that this should’ve caused you to inquire about the head of the person you were interviewing,” Mr. Munroe asked.

“There were no visible marks or signs of injury,” the witness said.

“I’m suggesting Mr. Lewis made a complaint of being attacked by a potential complainant resulting in him having to go to Doctors Hospital,” Mr. Munroe said.

“During my initial inquiries it was mentioned that the cell phone was taken by the other female who’d attacked him,” the investigator said.

However, this exchange was not documented, ASP Barrett admitted.

Mr. Munroe asked the witness if he checked to see when Lewis Jr. was discharged from Doctors Hospital but ASP Barrett said it was not relevant to the investigation. He also said he did not check to see if Lewis Jr. had been given a prescription as a result of the attack.

The trial resumes on Tuesday, February 23, at 10am.

Lewis Jr. remains on $5,000 bail.

Click here to read more at The Tribune

 Sponsored Ads