Tortuga robbery clerk bursts into tears as first prosecution witness

(CMR) The Tortuga robbery case began on Thursday with the first witness, an employee at the Tortuga store, bursting into tears and became very emotional as she took the stand and throughout her testimony. It was clear that she was traumatized by the incident as the crown began laying out their case for the jury.

In their opening remarks, the DPP stated that the robbery case against Richard Edward Nash and Kasnique Cupid is mostly circumstantial but it is supported by WhatsApp messages, CCTV footage, phone evidence and other things they have strung together – leaving no other conclusion that Cupid (Eve Highvoltage) was the getaway driver and Nash was one of two robbers.

Crown Counsel Garcia Kelly mentioned a number of pieces of evidence that the prosecution will rely upon to prove their case including clothing recovered from Nash, CCTV footage and cell phone tower phone evidence.

The first witness shared that she worked for Tortuga Liquor Store for over 8 years and was at the Governor's Square store location on the evening of February 7, 2020, when the robbery took place at 8:40 p.m. She was the supervisor for the evening shift.

During her testimony she explained that she was in the storeroom preparing to close the store for the evening when she heard the doorbell ring, indicating a customer had entered the store. However, the situation took a turn when she realized that it was no ordinary customer and a robbery was taking place.

She recalled harrowing details like how the robber threw her to the ground and placed a knife to her face and stole $10 out of her pants pocket by digging through it with his hands. At first, she was unsure what sort of weapon he had but soon could see a knife out of the corner of her eyes being held to her face.

She also shared that whilst on the floor she could hear her other co-worker pleading and saying “no no no” as she remained unaware of what might have been happening to her. Her mind turned to the worse and she feared they might be killed that evening.

Eventually, after getting a mere KYD $2,361 and USD $181 the robbers fled on foot and ran towards the back of the store which faces Cost U Less. Not realizing the direction they took she almost ran into them and angrily threw her shoe and a mop at the robber whilst alerting others to the fact that they had been robbed.

She noticed a regular customer who was walking towards the liquor store from Cost U Less and he came over to assist and call the police.

The second witness took the stand on Friday and identified herself as a friend of the alleged getaway driver, Cupid.

Cupid worked for Tortuga Liquors at the time of the robbery and the DPP is proposing that she was the mastermind behind the robbery and getaway driver that took the robbers to the location and later assisted them in getting away. To prove their case against Cupid they have claimed they will produce cell phone tower information that places her in the vicinity at the time of the incident.

The second witness, Vicky McGaw, appeared to be somewhat of a hostile prosecution witness who was difficult to pinpoint and caused several breaks in the proceedings. She was asked about WhatsApp messages between her and Cupid, who despite being a “friend” she only knew by a nickname. On the stand, she said she only knew her as “Eve”.

Much of her time on the stand was spent disputing what was in her signed police statement which she claims she did not bother to pay very close attention to.

In that statement, Cupid allegedly messaged her to say that she needed her to call someone else to meet her and pick her up on West Bay Road. The signed statement mentioned “Governor's Beach” which that witness denied ever saying.

Instead, on the stand, she claims that she made the call for Cupid; placing it on a 3 way and then put her handset down. Not paying attention to the remainder of the conversations.

Upon further examination, she claimed that she was busy with her children when the police took her statement and did not pay close attention to the contents of what it contained. The judge queried if the police had read the statement out to her before she signed it. She confirmed they had but stuck to her position that she was too busy to pay attention to what was being read to her and what she was signing.

The trial continues this week with the prosecution calling more witnesses including forensic members of the police force and police investigators. The four-woman and three-men jury will continue hearing the evidence.