A woman who is co-accused of a $300,000 theft with her husband clashed in court with a witness yesterday.

Keiva Maronie Durham, 44, had a heated exchange with Jeffrey Blair, a former detective constable involved in the case, as she was cross-examining him.

Mrs Durham and her husband Jaymo, 52, are representing themselves at the trial in the Supreme Court and have denied the charges.

They are alleged to have stolen more than $300,000 from four elderly residents and also of making and using false statements between February 23, 2012 and July 31, 2019.

The four alleged victims, clients of Ageing Disability Services, are Doreen Stevens, Nancy Locke and Muriel and Loretta Smith.

Mrs Durham began cross-examining Mr Blair, who is now a corporate lawyer, regarding documents about the investigation.

She said: “I put it to you your investigation was never complete or thorough if you didn’t have the required documents directly from the persons involved or [they] were never obtained.”

He replied: “Our response to you suggests that the evidence that’s here today speaks for itself. The evidence supports the offences you have been charged with.”

Mrs Durham angrily cut him off during his reply and began talking over him before Mr Blair said loudly: “I am responding to your question.”

At this point, Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe interrupted to calm the situation and asked Mr Blair to answer the question again.

Earlier in the day, the jury watched Mr Durham being interrogated by Mr Blair and another detective constable, Pat Rock, on the day he and his wife were cautioned and arrested at their home.

The interviews, conducted separately at Hamilton Police Station, were recorded and shown to the jury on large screens in the courtroom.

Mr Durham identified himself as an attorney and when asked about his wife replied: “The Bermuda Bar Council are required to grant a fit and proper person certificate for a practising attorney to be allowed to practise for the year.

“But my wife was denied a fit and proper certificate on the basis she had allegations of misconduct, which were yet to be determined before a tribunal.

“The determination is subject to an appeal, which is to take place on February 26.”

A variety of transactions from Ms Stevens account were put to Mr Durham. He was also asked about a loan for $4,500.

Mr Blair asks: “It is a small loan of $4,500 and was loaned to your mum, but did your mum know what the source of the funds were that made up that loan?”

He responded: “I believe so. The loan was kind of, I believe, it was for the purpose of loaning funds to my brother.

“My mother was responsible for him because my brother at the time did not have employment at that time and resided in the UK. She subsequently repaid it.

The court heard how relatives of Ms Stevens tried to have Mr Durham removed as receiver for her affairs.

But their Supreme Court action to have his receivership overturned failed. He said: “They wanted to get her to sign documents in a situation that I was aware of, but she didn’t have the mental capacity to set that up ... and their applications were overturned.”

Following more questions regarding loans from Ms Stevens’ saccounts, Mr Rock says to Mr Durham: “The money was clearly misappropriated — it’s as clear as day.”

But Mr Durham denies the accusation.

Later in the interview, Mr Blair states: “It is my suggestion you have also used much of Ms Stevens’s funds for your personal benefit.”

And again Mr Durham dismissed the claim.

The trial before Judge Wolffe continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case