For a second straight day, Rennie Coolman, the widower of Central businesswoman Vindra Naipaul-Coolman was placed under the spotlight in his wife’s murder trial as he endured hours of gruelling cross-examination yesterday. Despite being bombarded by a multitude of piercing questions, ranging from his personal finances and relationship with his deceased wife to his payment of a $75,000 bribe to avoid being prosecuted in the case, Coolman maintained his composure and calm disposition throughout the hearing.
However, the intense and sometimes irrelevant questions being posed by the attorneys appeared to take a toll on Justice Malcolm Holdip who seemed visibly frustrated as he attempted to rein them in while curtailing their inquires to the issues relevant to the case. The repetitive questions from the four attorneys, who questioned Coolman yesterday, also appeared to have a negative effect on jurors, who looked tired, were yawning and fidgeting in their seats, by the end of the hearing yesterday afternoon.
From the start, defence attorney Mario Merritt, who is representing two of the dozen accused men accused of murdering the former supermarket chief executive, picked up where he left off on Monday as he continued to question the status of the couple’s marriage.
Merritt: Were you resentful of your wife?
Coolman: In what sense?
Merritt: She was successful in Xtra Foods and in public life. Coolman: Yes, that’s right.
Merritt: When she died did she leave a will?
Coolman: No.
When asked if he inherited from his wife’s estate after she was declared dead, Coolman said yes, but gave no further details on his exact benefits.
Merritt again quizzed Coolman on why he did not contribute to the initial $122,000 ransom payment that was paid for his wife’s release.
Merritt: What prevented you from offering one month’s salary?
Coolman: Nothing prevented me from offering one month’s salary.
He also questioned Coolman on a piece of property which he was planning to purchase with his wife which Merritt said he (Coolman) refered to as a “love nest” during an interview with this newspaper several years ago. Coolman admitted he still went through with the deal even after she was kidnapped on December 19, 2006.
Attorney Collin Selvon went next and initially focused his attention on a house in Canada which Coolman initially claimed was used by his son, Riaz, before he clarified his earlier statement by saying it was bought by him and his wife, a year before her disappearance.
Coolman also claimed when he and his wife’s brother, Ryan, received a phone call from his wife’s alleged abductors, a day after she was taken, he suggested asking them to ask Vindra for the address to the house in Canada to prove that she was still alive. Selvon also questioned why Naipaul-Coolman’s brother was allowed to answer the telephone calls pertaining to a ransom for her release, instead of him.
Coolman repeatedly said he followed the instructions of the police and her family members who volunteered to deal with the calls. “I relied on the expertise of the Anti Kidnapping Unit officers that were there,” Coolman said. Yesterday’s hearing ended with the cross-examination of attorney Ian Brooks who questioned Coolman on the bribe he paid to woman, who promised to bribe prosecutors to not “innocently prosecute” him in the case.
Brooks: “When you were about to pay the money, did you know that was reprehensible?”
Coolman: “I was told that I would be innocently charged for kidnapping and murder of my wife.”
When pressed further, Coolman said: “I did it to protect myself and my family. It was an emotional response. If I went to jail...”, before being stopped by an objection from prosecutors. Brooks will continue his cross-examination when the trial continues this morning.