Who is popular today?

One of two former gangsters-turned-State witness yesterday testified that his ability to detail crimes committed by members of the Klansman gang was not because they confessed to him but because they were famous for bragging "how much duppy dem have pon ice".Witness number one, in a jaw-dropping disclosure, told the court of one particular grisly event in which one of the 33 accused gangsters on trial walked around "for days" with the head of a murdered rival gangster in a bucket."Sir, they sit and they brag how much duppy dem have pon ice an' who dem a go kill next, that's how they confess; they sit and brag about the people who dem kill," the witness told Lynden Wellesley, attorney for accused Fabian Johnson, otherwise called Crocs, and Ted Prince, also known as Mawga Man.The defence attorney had been quizzing the witness about how he came to be so well-informed about the exploits of members of the St Catherine-based criminal outfit at the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston."You said that quite a number of persons have confessed to you things that they have done. You tell me, why would they confess to you? Are you the pope?" Wellesley asked sarcastically.The witness, in responding further, insisted that he had told the court that these admissions were often made in a group and not solo.When the attorney suggested that neither of his clients had admitted any wrongdoing to the witness, or had participated in any illegal activities, the witness, in a bombshell response, said, "Sir, they commit crimes more than one time. Crocs was even boasting how he had Dowan head walking around with for days in a bucket."He added that Dowan was a member of the Tesha Miller faction of the gang who had allegedly been beheaded in Ocho Rios by the Andre "Blackman" Bryan faction."They kill him in Ochi and cut off him head and bury him body inna bush. He was the one giving them the most trouble, Sir," the witness claimed.Asked by the attorney whether he had told the police about this incident, the witness said "No."In the meantime, the witness stridently denied assertions by the defence attorney that the shooting deaths of two of his cronies in the motor car that he owned, and the seizure by the police of his licence, phone, and identification card - which were in the vehicle at the time and which led to him becoming a "person of interest" - was the real reason he started working with investigators.Wellesley insisted that the witness had not started working with the police until after January 24, 2019, in spite of his claims otherwise.The witness, under questioning by Wellesley, said he had started working with the police in 2018. Wellesley, however, charged that this was not true, suggesting instead that the witness had not started working with the cops until 2019 as he had been evading them prior to that because he had been a person of interest."Those statements you gave... are fictitious dates; these dates before 24th January 2019 are fictitious. Do you agree with me?" Wellesley said.The witness retorted: "You said you are going to prove a point, you said you are going to show me something, so go ahead."In response, Wellesley - furnishing the statements in question which he said were dated January 2019, May 2019, and December 2018 - said: "Please don't argue... the dates you give in your statement to the police in a fictitious name, these dates were not true."The witness, upon being asked his whereabouts between January 2018 and January 2019 said he was in protective custody at that time.Wellesley, however, rubbished the witness's claims, stating that he could prove otherwise, and again suggested that the witness's two cronies had been shot dead in the motor car belonging to him and that resulted in him running to the police "like a scared rabbit" because the police had also found his ID, driver's licence and cellphone."No, Sir, that's not true, that was a car rented by Blackman," the witness said.He further explained that he was the one to tell his cronies that he was a person of interest. That story, he said, had been concocted to throw them off as he was at that point working with the police. He further told the court that recordings held by the prosecution will prove that he is telling the truth.Wellesley also accused the witness of lying about having no previous convictions. According to the attorney, he had information that showed that the witness had been brought before the Supreme Court in 2012 with two other individuals to answer charges of illegal possession of firearms and assault."I have no knowledge of that," the witness replied, adding that he had never been charged for anything in his life.In the meantime, in response to questions as to how he could be a don and not have a weapon, the witness said he did not need a firearm as where he lived in Lauriston is a one-way and was well-protected by "three soldiers" (gang members) who were armed with a pump rifle, an Intratec, and a Beretta.Meanwhile, trial judge Chief Justice Bryan Sykes questioned the witness as to how he had explained to gang members the whereabouts of a pistol he had been given money to buy, and a rifle which he had volunteered to take to get fixed but which he had turned over to police investigators.The witness said that when his cronies asked about the pistol he told them that he had sold the gun to pay lawyer's fee, adding to the narrative he had given them about being a person of interest. He said he had told accused gang leader Bryan that the rifle was in the roof of the house of an uncle of his in a Kingston community and that he was not comfortable retrieving it, given that the area was under a state of emergency.He said, as a precaution, he had taken a photo of the purchased firearm before handing it over to the cops since he knew that Bryan, who was at that point incarcerated, would request a photo of it as proof. He said after he handed over those two guns to investigators there were no further face-to-face interactions with any of the gang members as after that he sold them the story that he was incarcerated."I've never pulled a trigger on anyone, Sir. I've pulled the trigger, but never on someone. I've never had a gun at my personal disposal. I didn't need a gun, Sir," he further told the chief justice.As for his decision-making powers as a don, he said "The only decision I make, Sir, was when 'City Puss' called for the shops dem to pay $5,000 a week and I stand against it, and when people lose their goat and I can't get it back for them I pay for it. I tried to stand up for the community."The trial resumes this morning at 10:00.