Son of senior, 87, is quizzed on drug use in theft trial
The son of an 87-year-old woman whose granddaughters are accused of stealing almost half a million dollars from her was grilled on his drug use at Supreme Court yesterday.Ivan Bean took the stand as a prosecution witness at the trial of his daughters Lorraine Smith, 46, and Audra-Ann Bean, 44, both of Warwick, who deny financially exploiting Lenice Tucker and siphoning $493,580 from her bank accounts between July 2010 and January 2011.Larry Mussenden, lawyer for the defendants, asked Mr Bean during cross-examination about his former job on the bell desk at the Fairmont Southampton hotel, where the witness said he worked for 34 years.“Did you get into any difficulties at Southampton Princess when you worked there?” asked Mr Mussenden.Mr Bean, of Overplus Lane, Sandys, said he was suspended, adding: “We all have ups and downs on different jobs. Everybody’s not perfect.”He confirmed he was suspended for stealing and said: “We all make mistakes.”Mr Mussenden asked if he did drugs. “I don’t do it any more,” replied the witness. “I was waiting for this to come up.”He said he hadn’t used drugs for 15 or 20 years but some people might still think he did “as they don’t want to forget”.When Mr Mussenden suggested he’d used drugs more recently, Mr Bean mentioned marijuana in the context of people dropping round to his home to say hello.Mr Mussenden alleged: “Marijuana is not the only drug you have used.”Asked if he’d used others, Mr Bean said: “Not really.” Pressed further, he said he had not used other drugs.He denied Mr Mussenden’s suggestion that he used drugs “recently” when he shared his home with his daughter, Ms Bean, and refuted a claim that there was a “strange smell in the house like cocaine”.Mr Mussenden said: “In your house at Overplus Lane the spoons started to disappear. Are you aware that spoons are used to prepare drugs?”Mr Bean said: “I never used no spoons for drugs in my house.” He added: “What’s my daughter telling you?”He was also asked by the defence lawyer if he knew about Ms Bean’s medical problems.Mr Bean said he knew his daughter suffered “something with the brain” but didn’t know “offhand” about her other medical conditions.Mr Mussenden said Ms Bean had a brain tumour and a heart attack, adding: “The heart attack was about four years ago, when she was living with you.”The prosecution alleges that Ms Bean and Ms Smith “descended” upon their grandmother after the death of her sister Lesseline, aged 91, who left $540,000 in five bank accounts to which Ms Tucker was a joint signatory.Mr Mussenden asked Mr Bean if he remembered telling Ms Bean there was money in Lesseline’s will which was “due to him”.The witness said he heard he was to get something, adding: “I haven’t seen nothing.”Earlier, Mr Mussenden concluded his cross-examination of Ms Tucker, who was also a prosecution witness, asking her if either of the defendants had ever disrespected her to her face. The senior replied they had not.Upon re-examination, Crown counsel Maria Sofianos asked if the pair had disrespected her “with regards to your accounts at the bank”.“No,” replied Ms Tucker, of Middle Road, Southampton.Ms Sofianos said: “With regards to the accounts at both [HSBC and Butterfield] banks, is it fair to say that your granddaughters have done things without your knowledge.”Ms Tucker responded: “Yes.”The case continues.
Two sisters opened a joint account into which more than $350,000 was deposited on the same day an identical amount was withdrawn from an account of their grandmother’s, a jury heard.Detective Constable Paul Fenwick told the Supreme Court trial of Lorraine Smith and Audra-Ann Bean that he led the police inquiry into the alleged theft by the defendants of almost half a million dollars from Lenice Tucker, 87.He said he took a report concerning Ms Tucker and her bank accounts from a relative of the senior, Carrie Tucker, on January 11, 2011.The detective, from Bermuda Police Service’s financial crime unit, told the jury he and his officers made inquiries of and obtained information from HSBC and Butterfield banks, where Ms Tucker had a number of accounts.Crown counsel Maria Sofianos asked him to look at paperwork detailing how four accounts at HSBC in Ms Tucker’s name were consolidated into one account, to which she and her two granddaughters were signatories.The prosecutor referred him to a bank statement for the latter account and asked if it showed a “large withdrawal” of $354,380.90 on October 8, 2010, leaving a balance of $100.The officer agreed it did. He was then referred to documents which he agreed showed that another account was opened in just Ms Smith and Ms Bean’s name on October 8 into which a deposit of $354,380.90 was made.Ms Sofianos said: “So the money has gone from one account to the new account?” The officer agreed.The examination-in-chief then turned to an account of Ms Tucker’s with Butterfield. Ms Sofianos asked if a statement showed a transfer out of the account on October 8 of $102,504.45, leaving a $100 balance. Det Con Fenwick said it did.Defence lawyer Larry Mussenden, cross-examining, asked the witness if there was video footage from the two banks of two accounts being opened on October 8. Det Con Fenwick replied none was available.Mr Mussenden asked: “In your investigations as a detective, did it ever cross your mind as to why on October 8 the defendants would go to not just one bank but two banks?”The witness replied: “That’s where the money was. It was in two separate accounts.”The defence counsel asked: “Did it ever cross your mind as to why would these ladies go into two banks on October 8 and transfer all the money into other accounts, leaving just $100.”Det Con Fenwick said: “It certainly did. Obviously, on October 8, when they did this to that money, they had sole access to that money. Lenice Tucker no longer had access to it.”Ms Smith, 46, of Lusher Hill, Warwick, and Ms Bean, 44, of Lusher Lane East, Warwick, deny the abuse of a senior by financial exploitation and the theft of $493,580 from their grandmother between July 2010 and January 2011.The case continues.
