Amid allegations t his wife’s abduction and murder was financially beneficial to him, Rennie Coolman, the husband of former supermarket chief executive Vindra Naipaul-Coolman, said he received the smallest portion of her $2 million estate. Coolman made the disclosure during his fifth day of cross-examination before Justice Malcolm Holdip in the trial of 12 men charged with his wife’s murder. He was responding to questions from defence attorney Richard Valere who claimed he had received close to $1 million when he wife was declared dead months after her kidnapping on December 19, 2006. “The estate was divided into four parts with four beneficiaries. It amounted to $500,000 each, as opposed to the legal distribution of 50 per cent normally given to a spouse,” Coolman said.
When pressed further for details of the distribution, Coolman claimed each of his wife’s three children from a previous marriage received $.5 million, while he agreed to take the remainder which amounted to approximately $488,000. He claimed since his wife did not have a will, he and her relatives agreed to the four-way split settlement. Valere also spent the majority of his cross-examination questioning Coolman about his personal finances and that of Naipaul-Coolman. When asked if he used money from their $400,000 joint account to pay a bribe to a woman, who had claimed that she could bribe prosecutors to refrain from prosecuting him (Coolman) in relation to the kidnapping, Coolman said yes. He said he was authorised to do so as he and his wife were both signatories to the account.
At a previous hearing, Coolman admitted paying the $75,000 bribe after relatives and friends convinced him he may be innocently charged in connection with the crime. Despite his admission Coolman was careful to note that the remaining money in the account was added to his wife estate before it was divided. Holdip immediately intervened and informed Valere and the 12-member jury and six alternates that Coolman was not legally required to make such a decision as he became the sole account holder on the death of his wife. Valere also refered to a house in Toronto, Canada, which the couple purchased a year before Naipaul-Coolman was kidnapped and was eventually sold after her death.
Coolman admitted there was a Can $42,000 difference in the selling and purchase price for the property but claimed he did not make a profit because of incidental fees, including taxes and a substantial commission for the real estate agent. He said the small profit he made in the sale was also added to his wife’s estate. “If you check it up, it cost me a lot of my own funds to maintain the house,” Coolman said. Earlier in yesterday’s hearing, defence attorneys took turns in asking Coolman about his relationship with his wife, while alleging they were going through a “rocky patch.” “Isn’t it true that you and your wife were having serious issues over the type of relationship you had with your step-daughter?” attorney Ulric Skerritt asked.
Coolman: Not at all. Skerritt also attempted to question Coolman about his relationship with his in-laws, before prosecutor Dana Seetahal, SC, intervened with an objection which was upheld by Holdip. Coolman’s cross-examination continues this morning. Once completed the State is expected to call its next two witnesses, two police officers assigned to the Anti-Kidnapping Unit who worked on Naipaul-Coolman’s investigation.