Bisram PI: Prosecution fails to locate final witness, closes case

Murder Accused: Marcus Bisram

The prosecution in the Marcus Bisram matter closed its case on Thursday while failing to present its final witness who the defense has been asking for in order to conduct cross-examination in relation to his statement.

The defense in previous hearing suggested to the court that the person does not exist and also suggested to the court that the prosecution would not be able to find the ‘witness’

Several attempts by the prosecution to locate the witness according to what they indicated to the court failed, which included checks at a number of addresses that they were told he was at. Two hearings ago, the prosecution told the court that the witness seemed to have gone on the run or in hiding, prompting the defense to question why the state’s witness would run from the state.

The matter which wold be called again on March 30, 2020, will see the Magistrate Renita Singh ruling on if there is enough evidence presented to the court for Marcus Bisram to face a judge and jury in relation to the murder of carpenter Faiyaz Narinedatt.

In her closing submission, State Prosecutor Stacy Goodings put forward to the court that it is the wish of the prosecution that the statement of the unaccounted for state witness be used as it was previously tendered into evidence.

That request did not sit well with defense attorney Glen Hanoman who is of the view that for three and a half years, the state has only been building their case around something that the state’s 17-year-old star witness reportedly heard but which he recanted on during his cross-examination three weeks ago.

Hanoman asked the court to be mindful of the report of the post-mortem report which stated the cause of death of the carpenter back in 2016.

Marcus Bisram was extradited to Guyana from the United States to face the murder charge but ever since his arrival, there have been numerous delays and circus-like developments around the case such as accusations being leveled against a magistrate of favoring the defense, the prosecution failing to comply with orders of the court, refusing to make statements available, absenting from hearing and requesting far off days for adjournment and several other actions which have all been classified by the defense as delay tactics by an unprepared state prosecution.