Defence lawyer Ed Bailey threw down the gauntlet yesterday to a senior Policewoman and challenged her during strident questioning on her role in the initial probe into the Lagoon Park murder.

But Insp. Beverley Pitt stood fast during a day of questioning in the Supreme Court as Mr. Bailey - representing Terranz (Monster) Smith - tried to show his client had made a deal with Insp. Pitt, then the senior officer in the Somerset Police Station's Criminal Investigation Department.

Insp. Pitt repeatedly denied there was a “deal” with Smith for him to reveal to Police the location of a then-unidentified body, somewhere north of Somerset Police Station on August 8, 2001.

Smith is accused with Alan (Spooks) Dill and Blair Tucker in the death of mysterious American Stanley Lee in Lagoon Park in Dockyard, on July 28, 2001.

Mr. Lee was found sprawled out in an advanced state of decomposition in a bush in an isolated part of the park on August 9.

The Crown alleges that Mr. Lee was stabbed to death after a quantity of cocaine was imported and found to be of low quality and the burly ex-con demanded whatever remaining drugs and profits back - to return to the US.

Insp. Pitt told the court last week that no deals for immunity were made with Smith after he told her that he knew where a dead body could be found.

She did admit to agreeing to certain “arrangements” to be shown the body - mainly that Smith be driven from Somerset Police Station via Sound View Road in an unmarked Police car to near his home on Main Road, Sandys because he did not want to be seen with Police while driving past Royal Naval Field.

Smith would then drive his own car - again via the less well travelled Sound View Road - while leading Police to the body.

Once on the road, Smith balked at showing the body but after taking advice from his lawyer the next day, led them to Mr. Lee.

“My Lady, once again, that is so untrue,” Insp. Pitt told Puisne Justice Norma Wade-Miller after Mr. Bailey suggested there was a deal. “I had no authority.

“At no time was there a ‘deal'. The word deal never came up. I would have spoken to his lawyer if something like that had come up.”

Earlier, Insp. Pitt said:“The defendant, Terranz Smith, never mention the world ‘deal' (on murder charges). Never.

“He wanted me to put in writing that he could not be prosecuted for the offence of the house breaking if he gave myself information about a dead body. That is a matter for the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions).

“I'm not going to get stuck on what ‘deal' means. I'm only going on what the defendant said to me. He was asking for an exchange.”

Mr. Bailey interjected: “Sort of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours?”

Insp. Pitt continued: “He never used the word immunity.”

Later, with her voice rising, Insp. Pitt said: “He was given the privilege of having those arrangements made. If a crime had been committed of that magnitude for which we are here today, it was imperative of me to follow up on the information that was given by the defendant, Terranz Smith - with the arrangements that he had made.”

In another exchange, Mr. Bailey - saying he was asking the question on the basis of “firm instructions” - asked Insp. Pitt if it was true that she told Smith that if his information was true that she “saw no reason that it (non-prosecution for murder) couldn't happen”.

With a chuckle, the 24-year veteran replied: “My job as a police officer would be in jeopardy and my integrity would be in question… The only thing he said is ‘you'll never be able to solve it (the murder)'. He never even mentioned immunity.”

When Mr. Bailey suggested Smith wanted the precautions in place because he did not want to be labelled a “snitch”, Insp. Pitt replied: “I believe he said he did not want to be a prick.

“In that context, prick means he didn't want persons on Naval Field - some who are known to Police - to identify Terranz Smith being seen in the company of police detectives.”

Mr. Bailey interjected by asking if he feared being seen.

“No! No, Mr. Bailey,” Insp. Pitt said. “I didn't say fear. For whatever reason, he didn't want to be seen.”

Insp. Pitt denied knowing that Smith was in custody for eight days while complaining about conditions at Somerset Police Station and suffering the effects of withdrawal from heroin.

But Mr. Bailey suggested that as the top detective at the station Insp. Pitt would also have known that Smith had laboured through eight separate statements and question-and-answer interrogations in those eight days. This was a violation of the Judge's Rules and the Bermuda Constitution, he said.

The trial continues today.