By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A KEY witness in an attempted murder trial admitted under cross-examination that some details in her testimony regarding a stabbing at a traffic light were not true.

However, the young mother refused to tell attorney Ramona Farquharson-Seymour if she was pressured or coached into giving a partially false version of what happened at around 1pm on the eve of Valentine’s Day, 2011.

Devon Adderley, 26, of Mermaid Boulevard, is facing a charge of attempted murder. It is claimed that on Sunday, February 13, 2011, he tried to murder Lashan Smith on the corner of Jerome Avenue and Chesapeake Road.

Adderley denies the charge.

Yesterday, the young woman took the stand and testified under questioning by prosecutor Eucal Bonaby about what she saw.

She said she and her family had come out of church and as she was putting her child in the car, she noticed an accident on Jerome Avenue involving a Honda and an Altima.

“A gentleman exited the car with a knife approaching the car he hit and began stabbing the woman,” the witness said.

She said she ran to the stabbing to see what was going on when the police arrived.

“When the police approached him, the gentleman dropped the knife. He began cussing and said ‘This is what love is! This is what love f is!’” the court heard.

The witness said while this was happening, she was on the outside of the car calling the ambulance for help.

During cross-examination, Mrs Seymour suggested to the witness that she did not see the green car approach the Nissan Altima.

The witness disagreed with the suggestion.

“How loud was the bump?” the defence attorney asked.

“It was loud enough so I could hear,” the witness answered.

“You didn’t tell police you heard it was slightly loud?” Mrs Seymour asked, suggesting to the witness that she read the statement she gave two days after the incident.

“Do you accept that you would’ve given indication of a slight bump?” the attorney asked.

“Yes,” the witness answered.

“When you gave the statement, it was a combination of speaking with the family and learning about it, isn’t that correct?” the attorney asked.

The witness said no. 

“So you didn’t speak with your mother?” Mrs Seymour asked.

“Yes,” the woman said.

She admitted that all her family members at the scene went to give a statement at the same time she did.

“Why are you saying things that are not true? Have you been pressured? That’s already twice you’ve accepted my suggestions,” Mr Seymour said.

The witness didn’t answer and the attorney moved on to her next question.

“Did you hear the police speak with the victim?”

“I wasn’t paying attention to the police,” she answered.

Mrs Seymour then referred to the witness’ testimony that when approached by police, the man dropped the knife and ran to his car.

“Do you accept that it’s not true?” 

“He dropped it and ran to his car,” the witness answered.

“Do you accept you did not say it in your statement?” the attorney asked.

“I accept,” she answered.

“You seem frustrated, I’m almost through. I suggest its not there because it did not happen. Do you accept my suggestion?” Mrs Seymour asked.

“I accept,” the witness said.

“I ask again why are you saying things that are not true?” the attorney asked.

The woman said she was not lying.

“Were you told to say that?” the attorney asked.

Mrs Seymour did not receive an answer, and further asked, “So you came to lie for no reason?”

The witness did not answer the question, nor did she answer when asked if she had a motive for coming to the court for lying.

“No further questions for this witness,” Mrs Seymour concluded.

Prosecutor Eucal Bonaby did not re-examine.

The trial resumes today before Justice Roy Jones.