Jury sees footage of gun parts defendant and police – The Royal Gazette | Bermuda News, Business, Sports, Events, & Community

Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS

Jury sees footage of gun parts defendant and police

Mail

Print

Tweet

Supreme Court (File photo)

The jury in the Supreme Court trial of a man charged with smuggling gun parts into Bermuda yesterday saw video footage of him being quizzed by detectives.

James Rumley refused to answer police questions during an initial interview and brought a second interview to an end when he asked to speak to his lawyer.

Mr Rumley, 38, of Spring Benny Road, denies three counts of importation of firearm components, alleged to have happened in June and October last year.

Mr Rumley was living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at the time of the alleged offences and flew to Bermuda just after packages said in court to contain the contraband had been sent by courier from the US.

The parcels were intercepted by police and Mr Rumley was arrested after he turned up at the home of his daughter’s mother.

Footage of the interviews showed Mr Rumley refuse to answer basic questions, such as his name, age and address.

When asked to confirm that, in a comment to another officer before the interview began, Mr Rumley had said he knew why he had been arrested and had meant to send the packages to California, he replied: “Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say nothing.

When told that police had intercepted one parcel that contained gun parts hidden inside a tool box, Mr Rumley replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Officers also told Mr Rumley that they had smartphone evidence to suggest he was tracking one parcel, to which he replied: “I didn’t track nothing.”

He also denied that he had a home address in Pittsburgh, where the parcels were shipped from, and claimed that he arrived in Bermuda because “I had some business to take care of”.

The trial, before Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe, continues today.

• 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.

Mail

Print

Tweet