 |
Nigel Abraham |
A 42-year old school teacher of St. Paul's, St. George's has been found guilty of murdering his wife, Bernadette Abraham in June 2006.
In a trial that lasted nine days, Nigel Abraham was found guilty of the murder of his wife of 16 years by a 12-member jury that comprised ten women and two men sitting at the Number One High Court in St. George's.
Abraham was charged with intentionally causing the death of his wife who, herself, was a primary school teacher by unlawful harm between Thursday June 22 and Friday June 23, 2006.
The court learnt that Abraham's death was due to affictia as a result of manual strangulation.
Abraham was discovered dead by the family's close neighbour, Gillian ŒPonder' Noel who told the court that about 9:00 a.m. on the morning of June 23, she received a phone call from the convicted school teacher who was at the time at his work place, the Wesley College Secondary School at Queen's Park, St. George's.
She said that Noel asked her to go and check on his wife for him since she was not feeling well that morning and remained at home.
According to the neighbour, the husband indicated that he had been telephoning her but not getting any response.
The female prosecution witness said that when she entered the house she found the wife lying on the bed on her stomach.
She said when she called out to her and shook her, she got no response.
Noel told the court she went into the living room, took the cordless phone and went to the verandah from where she called Abraham and advised him to come home.
Registered Nurse, Nakisha St. Bernard who was dispatched from the Accident and Emergency Department of the General Hospital with the ambulance said when she got to the house at Morne Delice, St. Paul's at about 10:05 she got a female orderly to assist her in turning over Mrs. Abraham on her back to gain greater access to the body. She said the body rolled over as a statute.
St. Bernard said when Abraham was turned over she observed a brownish substance that resembled blood a little away from the pillow and also a whitish substance resembling saliva.
She said that upon further investigation she determined that there was no sign of life in Abraham.
The District Medical Officer for St. George's South East, Dr. Sekhar Tam Tam who pronounced Abraham as being dead said her body was abnormally cold.
He observed that there was discolouration of the lips, face and fingers, and determined that Abraham must have died approximately seven hours prior to his examination at 10:50 a.m.
Dr. Hubert Daisley who performed the autopsy on June 29 found a number of injuries around Abraham's neck including a three-centimetre abrasion which he determined to be consistent to a finger nail mark.
The convicted teacher who gave an unsworn statement from the prisoner's dock said that on June 23 he got up at 3:00 a.m. to do some studies and prepare his school work for the day.
He said that one hour later his wife got up, used the bathroom and came to look at the clock in the dinning room where he was doing his work.
Abraham said his wife reported to him that her head was hurting and that she was feeling upset.
He told the court he offered her something hot but she refused and went back to bed.
Abraham said that at 5:00 a.m. he went into the bedroom and told his wife that since she was not feeling well, she should remain at home.
He said he then went outside to take care of the animals including four sheep.
The father of two girl children said that when he got back inside of the house he proceeded to assist the children in getting them ready for school.
He said that before leaving the house, he communicated to his wife by touching her on the shoulder and speaking to her, and she answered him.
Abraham is to return to court on March 18 at 9:30 a.m. for sentencing by Justice Clare Henry.
Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Christopher Nelson who led the case on behalf of the Crown has already given notice to the court that his Office will not be seeking the death penalty.
The maximum sentence that can be handed down is life imprisonment.
Defense Lawyer, Derek Sylvester was carefully guarded as to what will be his next course of action."I am looking at my other options. I cannot speak authoritatively to this matter unless and until the sentencing hearing is completed on the 18th of March 2008 at which time I'll be in a position to decide what is my next course of action," Sylvester told the media.
He, however, said that numerous options are opened to him including taking the matter to the Court of Appeal.
The defense attorney called a Trinidadian pathologist, Dr. Hughvon Desvigney who contradicted Dr. Daisley's findings.
Dr. Desvigney told the court there was no evidence of manual strangulation of the body.
Although, the prosecution did not identify a motive for the killing, GRENADA TODAY learnt that the convict was engaged in an extra marital relationship at the time of the murder.
Speculation is rife that the husband had come into the house in the early hours of the morning, minutes before the killing of his wife.
Nelson took strong objection to the evidence relayed by Dr. Desvigney which according to him, was trying to create doubt about the prosecution's pathologist.
"I reluctantly had to call Dr. Desvigney a comedian, because when one examines the authorities on forensic medicine, the proposition that he had attempted to put forward in support of his client and to contradict Professor Daisley... it was ridiculous. The evidence were overwhelming that this was a case of affictia...", the DPP said.
"I believe Dr. Desvigney allowed other issues to cloud his judgement in the giving of his evidence, and this is the reason why I had to deal with him in the manner in which I dealt with him in this case. There was no possibility of a heart attack in this case," he added.
Nelson, said that although the case was based on circumstantial evidence, he was confident that the prosecution had a strong case that could have brought home a guilty verdict.
"We were not surprise at all of the outcome. The evidence pointed in only one direction, the death was unnatural and it was only the husband, that is the accused, who could and would have had the opportunity to kill her. The jury followed that and read in that carefully," he said.
