Sherman Webb testifies at murder trial

Sherman Webb

The testimony of Corporal Jeffery James brought a close to the case for the prosecution in the Sherman Webb murder trial.

Corporal James was the last of 13 witnesses.

He told the court that he meticulously dug out the skeletal remains at River Clear in 2010, and recorded the statements given by the accused when he was first picked up in relation to that matter.

Accused Sherman Webb surprised the court when he decided to take to the witness stand where he could be cross examined by prosecution and the jury.

Webb swore on the Bible that the details he was about to give was the truth.

His account was lengthy and detailed, in terms of what he said transpired between him and the deceased Corey Poleon.

However, Justice Birnie Stephenson Brookes warned the media against reporting the content of Webb’s testimony until after the verdict, to avoid prejudicing members of the jury.

Addresses to the jury and the verdict will be done on Friday at the Roseau High Court.

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of Inc. All comments are approved by before they are posted. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are excessively long and off-topic

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.


  1. Anonymous
    June 25, 2012

    Dude swore on the bible,And talking ”bout his saying is the truth,Was’ t he doing occult practices?how could They believe a Man.,that don’ t believe in the bible but vows on it,their justice aint different from this guy They’ ll evil

  2. June 21, 2012

    First time in my life I ever hear Jurors cross examining. WOW this must be a very special case.

    • vince
      June 21, 2012

      guess you have never been to the high court before. thats not the only case

  3. I'mWondering
    June 21, 2012

    Perhaps the wrong terminology was used by DNO reporters. The jury asked questions – they did not CROSS EXAM… they can’t technically cross exam…However, normally jurors can ask questions through the judge. It is only now becoming more usual that judges allow jurors to ask questions – but these questions are for clarification.

    Cross examination is adversarial and i cant imagine the jury being allowed to technically cross exam

    JURORS CAN’T PERFORM CROSS EXAMINATIONS…that would be an injustice if a juror took on the role of an adversary of the accused in this case

  4. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012

    The Jury is allowed to ask questions to clarify whatever testimony was given by the witness in the witness box. If the Accused person elected to give evidence on oath, the members of the jury are able to ask questions. It is not a cross-examination per se but since they are triers of the facts they are allowed to ask questions, if they overstep then the Judge will instruct the witness not to answer and defence cousel can object as well.

  5. Milly
    June 21, 2012

    Admin? so whats the point of giving out useless information, when you know u arnt allowed to give any information smh.

    • Anonymous
      June 21, 2012

      Ppl like you like too much beff! Why dont you try educating yourself on how sensitive court matters are to be reported? Then you will understand the reason why DNO cannot report anything more.

    • Justice and Truth
      June 21, 2012

      @ Milly

      Patience! At least, for the moment, you have an idea of the goings-on. The Media was instructed to refrain from doing so and has to abide it until after the verdict.

  6. Justice and Truth
    June 20, 2012

    I agree that his testimony should not be publicized until after the verdict. I suppose, we the public could comment.
    He ‘swore on the Bible’. What could he have stated that could be the truth? Better not tell lies otherwise in the eyes of God you will incriminate yourself further and place a further curse and punishment on you, just as bad swearing on the Bible and telling lies. The Bible is The Word of God and one of His Commandments is, “Thou shalt not kill”. It is in the Bible!
    He murdered the man in cold blood. There is no excuse for murder. God is not pleased with those who commit murder. The penalty for murder is death.

  7. A Voice
    June 20, 2012


    ‘Accused Sherman Webb surprised the court when he decided to take to the witness stand where he could be cross examined by prosecution and the jury

    ‘However, Justice Birnie Stephenson Brookes warned the media against reporting the content of Webb’s testimony until after the verdict, to avoid prejudicing members of the jury.

    Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?

    • Robyn
      June 21, 2012

      “A Voice” I agree there is a contradiction and its the DNO writer. First of, jury members do not cross examined witnesses. DNO please rewrite this sentence because it is misleading.

      • me
        June 21, 2012

        i wish some of you all would educate yourselves first before coming on here and talking stupes if u have ever been to a trial you will notice that the jury are given an opportunity to question the witness. stupes typical dominicans.

    • dUMBIE
      June 21, 2012

      How is it that he surprised the court when he has the 3 avenues open to him? He could chose any of the 3- so how is it that it surprised the court

    • I caught it as well.

      I think what you are seeing here is flawed reporting.

      Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill. Evangelist.

  8. jojo
    June 20, 2012

    waw. that is really something now. so are they claiming self defense?

  9. CCJ
    June 20, 2012

    I may be wrong BUT DNO…. you are not suppoded to translate proper nouns… It’s not River Clear…. you are supposed to leave it in creole….however that is spelt…

  10. June 20, 2012

    Well let us hope that fair justice will be done in this case, in that whatever the verdict, it was inspired by our God, who is and will always be the final judge.

    I am really curious to hear what this man had to say about himself–having taken that oath on the Bible. Good grief!

  11. Morihei Ueshiba
    June 20, 2012

    Phew good thing sadusky operated in America, i can just hear those magistrates telling journalists not to report everything, guess Dominica is not the Land of the Free.

    • Justice and Truth
      June 21, 2012

      @ Morehei

      Obedient to the Court! The difference between those two countries is, one is big and the other is small. Consider if the Media publicized what Webb stated prior to the verdict. This could prejudice the case and as usual with everyone providing their two cents pro and con. There is a reason why the Media was told to refrain from publicizing it. You must think beyond.

      • But the if he jury has already heard what the witness said how could they be prejudiced by hearing it again from the media :?:

        Perhaps I am missing something here. Please excuse me if I am. Hopefully I will pick up on it as I go along.

        Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill, Evangelist.

  12. Question??
    June 20, 2012

    Isn’t it the defense team and prosecutor who cross examines?? Article states jury cross examines.

    • At iy
      June 21, 2012

      I was wondering the same myself…smh.

    • It is a matter of the jury asking for clarification and not actually a cross examination. DNO just worded it incorrectly.

      Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill, Evangelist.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available