Murder accused Robert Blair Tucker had ample chances to review and change statements he made to Police, a prosecutor told a Supreme Court jury heard yesterday.

Crown counsel Juan Wolffe was responding to suggestions that were put to Police witness Det. Sgt. Jerry Laws during a cross-examination in which Tucker?s lawyer Larry Scott suggested detectives had made mistakes during their investigation.

Tucker is one of a trio, including Terranz Smith and James Alan Dill, who are charged with murdering or being involved in the murder of mysterious New Yorker Stanley Lee during his trip to the Island in July 2001.

During re-examination of the witness, Mr. Wolffe attempted to clarify that, while on two occasions Tucker had not been asked the specific question of whether to add, alter or clarify what he said, the defendant had been given ?opportunity? to do so.

He referred Det. Sgt. Laws to various parts of the statements, pointing out the numerous signatures of Tucker halfway down each page, and also that records showed he had been asked if the statement was a ?true and accurate? record of what he had said.

To that question, the officer answered, Tucker had replied ?yes? on each occasion.

Mr. Wolffe asked: ?And had Tucker wished to change anything would you have allowed him to do so?? The detective said he would have.

Earlier in the trial the ten-woman, two-man jury had heard how Tucker had described in a statement to Police how he stabbed Mr. Lee on July 28 in Lagoon Park, near Dockyard after the two fell out over an alleged shipment of cocaine.

Mr. Wolffe?s brief reexamination came after Mr. Scott had asked Det. Sgt. Laws, who was the case officer in the matter, whether Police had formally arrested Tucker before they started asking him questions about the killing of Yonkers resident Mr. Lee ? an ex-convict who was known as Sean Russells to New York State and Eddie Montalvo to New York State Prisons.

He asked whether was aware that the arrest form for Tucker had not been part of the case bundle for the preliminary inquiry into the matter until September 25 last year.

?This matter was only latterly discovered. Mr. Tucker had not been properly arrested and to tie up that loophole the form was put in there on a later occasion,? Mr. Scott suggested.

Det. Sgt. Laws replied that Tucker had in fact been formally arrested for the murder and that he had been given a form notifying of the rights that he had as a prisoner when he was arrested for another matter.

?He was very aware of his rights,? said the Policeman, before being challenged over why Mr. Scott had been noted as Tucker?s lawyer on the arrest form when, in fact, he was still representing co-defendant Smith on that day.

?I suggest there clearly is a conflict in what is being presented,? said Mr. Scott. ?The evidence that you allowed to be presented at the preliminary inquiry says something else.?

Det. Sgt. Laws said he had not, in fact, prepared the documents for the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

The trial continues today. Attorney Elizabeth Christopher represents Dill, while lawyer Ed Bailey appears for Smith.