R v Leonard Ebanks - Ruling

¶ IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 84/10 THE QUEEN V LEONARD ANTONIO EBANKS Appearances: Mr. Trevor Ward and Ms. Marilyn Brandt for the Crown Mr. Martin Heslop Q.C. instructed by Ms. Lucy Organ of Samson and McGrath for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Heard: 5th - 22nd September 2011 RULING Introduction

¶ [1] At some time after 7:30 p.m., but before 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday the 8th September 2010, Tyrone Burrell was shot and killed at a house at 177 Birch Tree Hill Road, West Bay. Mr. Burrell died from one fatal gunshot wound to the back of the head.

¶ [2] At 8:05 p.m. on the same evening Tishara Webster and Arlene White, accompanied by a young boy, visited West Bay Police Station and reported the shooting to Sgt. Leighton Groves.

¶ [3] The ambulance personnel arrived at the scene of the shooting at 8:15 p.m. whereupon the deceased was taken to George Town Hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival.

¶ [4] On the 11th September 2010 an autopsy was performed on the body of the deceased by Dr. Marc Schuman. Dr. Schuman confirmed that the deceased died of a gunshot wound to the head.

¶ [5] None of the foregoing facts are challenged by the Defence, and on the basis of the autopsy report, it is clear that the deceased was murdered with one gunshot entering the back of his head. CROWN’S CASE 1st Witness: Arlene Marjorie White ("Ms. White")

¶ [6] Ms. White said that she had been living at 177 Birch Tree Hill Road in West Bay ("177") from the 22nd January 2010. She worked for Tishara Webster ("Ms. Webster") as a live-in domestic and babysitter and was paid CI$600.00 per fortnight.

¶ [7] Ms. White said that Ms. Webster and Ms. Webster’s fiancé, Travis Bodden ("Travis"), occupied one room of the four rooms of the house at 177 with their two children. Also on the property were Cannon and Juliette who occupied another of the four rooms, as well as Travis’ uncle who occupied another room at the back of the house.

¶ [8] Ms. White said that she first met the deceased, Tyrone Burrell, at 177 three Sundays before his death. She then saw him on the Wednesday after meeting him.

¶ [9] Ms. White recalled the 8th September 2010 when she was sitting at the back of the premises underneath the mango tree with Ms. Webster’s baby. Ms. White said Tyrone Burrell arrived at the premises at around 11 a.m. or 11:30 a.m. He arrived at the back of the house and he was dressed in a white pair of sneakers, a pair of blue jeans, an inside-white T-shirt and a Polo shirt over the T-shirt.

¶ [10] Ms. White said that she spoke to Tyrone Burrell and they were together for approximately 15 minutes.

¶ [11] Ms. White said that after that, she went back inside the house and left Tyrone Burrell outside, and she did not know whether Tyrone Burrell left the premises or what he did.

¶ [12] Ms. White said there were usually a lot of guys coming to and going from the premises.

¶ [13] Ms. White recalled that the Defendant, whom she called “Tonio”, was also at 177 on that day.

¶ [14] In her evidence in chief Ms. White said that she had known the Defendant since June 2010 and had met him at 177. She said that the Defendant virtually lived at 177, because he was there late at night and early in the morning, he had breakfast there and he was just like a family member.

¶ [15] Ms. White said that her relationship with the Defendant was very good, and they had a very good rapport.

¶ [16] Ms. White recalled that on the 8th September 2010 the Defendant came to 177 in the morning, he was there almost all day, and then he went away and returned to 177. She recalls that he left 177 at around 4 p.m., and at that time he was wearing a short jeans pants and a white merino.

¶ [17] Ms. White recalled that she saw Tyrone Burrell at around 5 p.m. She said she was in the kitchen making burgers and fries and Tyrone Burrell came into the kitchen. Tyrone Burrell asked Travis if he could have a burger and she, Ms. White said yes, and asked Tyrone Burrell for $4.50.

¶ [18] Ms. White said she prepared the burger and at some time between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. she went outside and called Tyrone Burrell. Ms. White handed him the burger and said to him that he should leave the premises now because "dark is coming down."

¶ [19] Asked why she told Tyrone Burrell to leave the premises, she said that every time she sees Tyrone Burrell she could "see trouble for him." In effect, Ms. White said that she had a premonition that something bad was going to happen to Tyrone Burrell. She said that when she told Tyrone Burrell to leave he said: "Yes mummy, me leaving now." Ms. White said that Tyrone Burrell then went outside and turned in the area of the mango tree, towards the right side of the house.

¶ [20] Ms. White said that, at around 7 p.m., she heard something drop outside. She stopped what she was doing and she headed outside to see what was going on. Ms. White said that on her way through the door, to outside, she saw the Defendant pass swiftly, and then she saw that he had left his bicycle on the ground outside. Ms. White said she knew it was the Defendant’s bicycle because he rode it “all the while.” Ms. White said that the bicycle was dropped right beside the living room window.

¶ [21] Ms. White said that the Defendant had passed the kitchen door at the front of the house, swiftly. She said he was dressed in a black baseball hat, a black “tall sleeve shirt”, short black pants, and Ms. White also noticed that the Defendant had a handkerchief wrapped around his hand. She said the handkerchief was black and white in colour, with less white and more black. She said there was nothing impeding her view of the Defendant as he headed towards the mango tree and she said that she was approximately 2 to 3 feet away from the Defendant when he passed her by the kitchen door.

¶ [22] Ms. White said that after she saw the Defendant she stepped back inside the kitchen and continued doing what she was doing. She said that she next heard a “bow” or a sound like a gunshot. She said it was one sound and she said she heard it approximately 5 seconds after seeing the Defendant pass swiftly towards the mango tree. Crown counsel asked Ms. White to repeat her answer and she said, “five seconds, around five seconds.”

¶ [23] Ms. White said that she did nothing when she heard the shot.

¶ [24] Ms. White said that Ms. Webster came to where she, Ms. White was, and they both went outside where they found Tyrone Burrell lying beside the boat, which is to the left side at the front of the premises.

¶ [25] Ms. White said she patted the body of the deceased on the back three times and said, "You wouldn't listen. You come in here and kill off yourself."

¶ [26] Ms. White was asked if when she went outside and saw the body of the deceased, she saw anybody else, and she said there was no one there.

¶ [27] Between 10 to 15 minutes after finding Tyrone Burrell's body Ms. White, Ms. Webster and a baby went to West Bay Police Station. Ms. White said Ms. Webster drove the van and Travis remained inside his room back at 177. Ms. White said Ms. Webster made the report to the police about the shooting of Tyrone Burrell at the premises.

¶ [28] Ms. White said she did not see the Defendant again on the 8th September.

¶ [29] In the evening of the 9th September 2010 Ms. White said she was driving with Ms. Webster, Travis and the two kids as they were going to Ms. Webster's father's house. Whilst driving along on the road on which there is a Jehovah Witness Church, they saw the Defendant standing on the road. She said Ms. Webster pulled up beside the Defendant. Ms. White said they spoke with the Defendant for less than 5 seconds – they just said hi and bye.

¶ [30] The next time Ms. White saw the Defendant was on the 10th September 2010 at around 10 a.m. Ms. White said that the Defendant came to the premises and came inside and went to Travis' room. Ms. White said Travis and the Defendant had a chat and then they left the room and went outside.

¶ [31] Ms. White said that after they went outside she went inside Travis’s room to start tidying it up. She said that whilst she was tidying the room the Defendant came and knocked on the door. Ms. White said the Defendant asked her: "What's happening?" And she said she told him: "I am here on repentance ground." Asked to explain what she meant by her statement she said: "When you are trying to be a Christian and trying to live for the Lord you normally use that word."

¶ [32] Ms. White said that the Defendant next said to her: "Do you know who killed the little boy?" Ms. White said she said to the Defendant that she did not know. Ms. White said that the Defendant then said that "Him kill the pussyhole."

¶ [33] Ms. White said she said to the Defendant: "The blood of Jesus against you, why you kill the youth?" Ms. White said that the Defendant replied and said:
“Tyrone shoot up the old lady’s house up the road which he said was Devon’s mother’s house.” Ms. White said the Defendant also said that Tyrone was a spy, because: “He goes from Logwood to Birch Tree Hill carrying news back and forth.” Ms White explained that there was “violence between the Logwood gang and the Birch Tree Hill gang,” and that the Defendant was saying that Tyrone Burrell was a spy.

¶ [34] Ms. White said that the Defendant continued to come in everyday after that, the same way he always did. She recalled the 21st September 2010 when she asked the Defendant to get her a bottle of bleach. Ms. White said the Defendant said he could go but she would have to wait. Ms. White said she asked the Defendant: “Wait upon what, man?” Ms White said that the Defendant then lifted his shirt and showed her that he had a gun. She said that the gun was “in the front part” and she indicated the area of the waist. Ms. White said she said to the Defendant: “Tonio why can’t you just put it down?” Ms. White said that this was not the first time that she had seen the gun. She said she had seen the Defendant with the gun before Tyrone Burrell
There is no text or content to transcribe from this page. It appears to be blank.
died. Ms. White described the gun as a little .38 handgun with a spin barrel, chrome mouth and an antique handle. She said it was "...a little .38 gun."

¶ [35] Asked by Crown counsel how she was able to say that it was a .38, she said she had worked at the Spanish Town Police Station in Jamaica for several years so she knew a little about guns. Ms. White said the Defendant had also told her that he had the gun because: "...they wanted to kill him so he has to walk with it to protect himself."

¶ [36] Ms. White said that some days later the Defendant came back to her and "Said his alibi is good because him and his wife was having a shower together and Juliette saw him that same evening and told him not to come by the house because Tyrone got shot over there and died."

¶ [37] In her examination in chief Ms. White said that she attended the police station on the 26th September and identified the Defendant from the set of photographs that were put in front of her.

¶ [38] Ms. White said that she continued to live at 177 until the 3rd of October 2010. She said that the last time that she saw the Defendant was on the 2nd October 2010, again at 177. Ms. White said that she and the Defendant still had a good rapport. She said that the Defendant asked her for her contact details in Jamaica but she did not give them to him.

¶ [39] Ms. White said that on the 15th October 2010 she received a call from the Defendant while she was in Jamaica. Ms. White said that the Defendant called her on her cell phone and she said the Defendant told her: "The boys them hold me" – referring to the police holding him. Ms. White said she told the Defendant she did not understand, to which the Defendant explained that it was in relation to the death of Tyrone Burrell by saying, "Tyrone dead." Ms. White said that the Defendant then said to her: "Pray for me and do what you can do for me." Cross Examination

¶ [40] Ms. White told leading counsel for the Defendant that she was born on the 10th October 1962 and that she would be 49 in a couple of weeks time.

¶ [41] Ms. White said that while she was in Jamaica she was in fulltime employment. She said that during the 1990s she worked at the Spanish Town Police Station. Ms. White explained that she worked in the canteen at the police station doing cashier work. She explained further that she heard gunshots everyday and that police would come into the canteen and often show her their guns. Ms. White explained that she saw different types of guns. Asked by counsel how she came to know what a .38 gun looked like, she said she asked the police the names of guns because she saw them around her and she saw them on a daily basis. Ms. White explained that it was a
“need to know” or curiosity that made her ask the police officers about the types of guns that they had in their possession.

¶ [42] Ms. White explained that she first worked in the Cayman Islands in 1998 and then she got another work permit in August 2000. She said that on the 6th August 2008 she went back home to Jamaica due to the Cayman Islands Government’s Term Limit “Rollover” policy.

¶ [43] Ms. White said that when she started working with Ms. Webster at 177 she was earning $300.00 per week with boarding and lodging.

¶ [44] In response to leading counsel Ms. White admitted that Travis sold drugs from 177. Ms. White said other people came to sell drugs at the premises. In response to counsel Ms. White said the drugs were sold almost every day and it was mainly cocaine.

¶ [45] Ms. White did not agree with Mr. Heslop that there were large numbers of people selling drugs at the premises and further, she said she did not count the guys that came into the yard. However, Ms. White admitted that a number of persons came in to buy and sell drugs at the premises.

¶ [46] Ms. White said that as one looked at the photographs of the front of the house, the mango tree was to the left. The boat and the truck where the deceased was found are to the right in the photo.

¶ [47] Ms. White said that she had never been to Mr. Archie’s house nor did she know that he had a sister. She said she “had no dealings with those people.”

¶ [48] She said she did not know where the Defendant lived and she had never been to his house and she could not identify it.

¶ [49] Asked about first meeting Tyrone Burrell Ms. White explained that she was reading her Bible and she saw an image of a young man who appeared to her to be in trouble. She explained that she had similar experiences of seeing images before, for example, when people are sick. She said she had also dreamt about things like this. Mr. Heslop described it as a presentiment or a vision from God and Ms. White said, "Yes. It was like God helping me to show a man what is going to happen to him."

¶ [50] Ms. White said she explained this to Ms. Webster and Juliette and Ms. Webster said the image she described was very similar to the guy outside, and that is when Ms. White said she first saw Tyrone Burrell. Ms. White said that she told Tyrone Burrell that there was something wrong and she continued reading her Bible and praying for him.

¶ [51] Ms. White told Mr. Heslop that she did not just imagine this. She said to Mr. Heslop: "When you are a Christian you don't imagine. When you are blessed from God you can't play tricks with your head, or you are not a true Christian."

¶ [52] Ms. White said that she had known the Defendant since June 2010. She said she recalled that it was June because she was on vacation in May and she did
not know him then. She said it was early in June when she returned from her vacation and that was when she first met the Defendant.

¶ [53] It was put to Ms. White that in her witness statement dated the 22nd September 2010 she said that she knew the Defendant since March 2010. Ms. White explained that when she gave that statement she was "shooked [sic] up" and it was only some time after that statement that she recalled that she did not know the Defendant in March, April or May 2010.

¶ [54] Under various periods of intense cross examination about this discrepancy, she was asked by Mr. Heslop: "Well, what made you say March?" She said, "I just didn't remember that it wasn't March." Under further cross examination Ms. White was reminded by Mr. Heslop that in her statement she said she "start [sic] seeing Antonio since March when he come from prison." In reply to counsel Ms. White said: "I am not telling a lie on 'Tonio. I did not remember that clearly, but I do know it was June." Ms. White again said she was "shooked up" at the time of that statement and she told counsel that that was the second murder at 177. She said to counsel: "After two murders in the yard you don't expect me to be shaken up?"
She also acknowledged that though she was living at 177 at the time when Damien Ming was murdered, she was not actually present at house at the time of the murder.

¶ [55] Pressed on the issue of when she met the Defendant Ms. White acknowledged that she made a mistake in saying March and not June. She explained that there are times: "...when you have forgotten things" and she said further that she: "...is human... not all the time you remember exact." Mr. Heslop insisted to Ms. White: "This is an example of you telling the police something which you believe to be true, but which turns out be completely false." Ms. White replied: "No, I don't tell them nothing that is wrong, I only make a mistake with the time I met him."

¶ [56] Ms. White said that the Defendant was treated as a member of the family. He would go into the fridge and help himself, and he would stay over on many occasions.

¶ [57] Ms. White accepted that she heard there were two gangs – one called Birch Tree Hill and the other Logwood – and she also said that she had learned that these gangs were "in war."

¶ [58] It was suggested to Ms. White that Tyrone Burrell was mixing with both gangs and that people talked about that. In reply Ms. White said that the only person who told her that was the Defendant. She emphasised: "Only one person said that to me."

¶ [59] Ms. White said that she was not present at the premises when Damien Ming was killed on the 25th of March 2010. She did she did not know that Tyrone Burrell was a friend of Damien Ming because she had only met Tyrone Burrell after Damien Ming had died. She again said that the only person who told her that Tyrone Burrell was a spy was the Defendant.

¶ [60] Asked further about activities at the premises Ms. White said, "It is not a pretty home I am staying. It's a drug place." Ms. White again agreed with Mr. Heslop that 177 was a drug yard and said: "When you are asked a question it is better you leave it alone because this yard is not a pretty yard."

¶ [61] Ms. White accepted that on the 8th September 2010 there was a party during the day at 177. She said people were outside drinking, including Travis, Sonia, Tyrone and others. Ms. White said there were about 8 people in the yard and they were playing music while she was making burgers. She acknowledged to Defence counsel that "gangster style music" was being played, but she said the music was turned down around 6 p.m.

¶ [62] Ms. White said that it was some time shortly after that that, whilst she was in the kitchen making a burger for Ms. Webster, Tyrone Burrell came into the kitchen and asked for a burger. Defence counsel put it to Ms. White that Tyrone Burrell came into the kitchen to collect the burger when it was ready, but Ms. White said she had come out of the kitchen to call Tyrone to get the burger when it was ready. Ms. White said Tyrone Burrell did not come into the kitchen to collect the burger.

¶ [63] Ms. White told Mr. Heslop about her hearing the noise of the bicycle dropping on the ground and that she stepped outside and saw the Defendant. She said the Defendant hastily passed the kitchen door. She said she went to the doorway and he was right in front of her – moving from her left, that is from the direction of the boat, over to her right, which is towards the mango tree.

¶ [64] Ms. White said the Defendant was moving swiftly and it was very strange and unusual for him not to stop, no matter what was going on, to come in and say hello. She said it was unusual because: "... normally when he come there he would come right in the kitchen" Mr. Heslop asked Ms. White if 'Tonio as someone who would sometimes move swiftly and Ms. White said: "I never saw 'Tonio come to that house, no matter what is on ...or anything, would pass me and not even say what's going on."
Mr. Heslop persisted and said there was nothing unusual, because that is the way the Defendant moved and Ms. White replied: "I don't know 'Tonio move swiftly that he never stop and talk to me yet.'" Continuing under cross examination Ms. White said: "What I said to you, 'Tonio would come and go swiftly but he never come into that yard and never come in the house. So it was strange to me at that time.'" Ms. White continued and said that even when 'Tonio moved fast or hastily he would come and pick up what he wanted and then say: "...Me soon come back, me go up the road. So it was strange to me that he didn't stop and the kitchen door wide open." Ms. White continued that it was strange that the Defendant did not stop and say hi because "he is like that, he is very friendly. Ms White said the Defendant was moving hastily in the direction of the mango tree and she was sure it was "'Tonio." Mr. Heslop suggested that it could be less than five seconds between the time that she saw the Defendant moving towards the mango tree and then heard the gunshot. Mr. Heslop said he would "suggest 2 to 3 seconds", and asked Ms. White "would you agree or disagree." Ms. White replied "I wouldn't disagree. I just estimate it at five seconds."

¶ [66] Ms. White said she was sure that she heard a gunshot, and she agreed that she did not see the shooting. She agreed that she was at the stove and the gunshot came from the corner of the house where the boat is.

¶ [67] She said the lighting was good in the kitchen and there were lights on the eaves on the corners of the house. Ms. White said the lighting was very clear. Ms. White said the lighting from the kitchen was very good and also the lights on the eaves at the two corners were on.

¶ [68] Ms. White said that when she saw the Defendant just before hearing the gunshot he was wearing a "tall sleeve black shirt", a baseball cap and short black pants, with a handkerchief wrapped around his hand.

¶ [69] Asked why she used the word "jacket" in her statement she said she did not use the word jacket. She said she had always said it was a "black tall sleeve shirt" and she said it must have been the officer who wrote down "jacket."

¶ [70] It was put to her that the word "jacket" in her statement was another failure of her recollection, and she said, "No." Ms. White said that when she gave the statement she made sure she told the police it was a black baseball hat, a "tall sleeve black shirt" and short black pants. She said writing the word jacket was a mistake on the part of the police and she had no explanation for how it reached in the statement because she was sure she did not say "black jacket," but she did say "tall sleeve black shirt."

¶ [71] Ms. White agreed that when she went to the police with Ms. Webster. It was Ms. Webster who made the report and that she did not talk to the police on
that occasion. Ms. White said she did not make a deliberate decision not to tell the police what she knew. She said she was outside the station with the children.

¶ [72] Ms. White said that when the police first visited the premises after the shooting she did not speak to them because she was "shooked up." She said to Defence counsel: "I was shooked up. I did not spoke with them because I was not in a frame of mind." Ms. White said she was frightened because this had been the second shooting at the premises. Asked by Defence counsel: "Did you connect what you had seen with the shooting?" Ms. White replied, "...I did not think 'Tonio would really shoot that guy.'"

¶ [73] Ms. White was asked about the 10th September. She told Mr. Heslop that the Defendant had told her that he had killed the boy. She also told Mr. Heslop that the Defendant had told her that Tyrone Burrell was a spy and that he had been shot because he had attacked the property of the grandmother of someone called "Devon." Defence counsel put it to Ms. White that the Defendant never told her that he had shot Tyrone Burrell and he never showed her a gun, to which she replied, "Yes he did."

¶ [74] Mr. Heslop highlighted the fact that Ms. White had told the police that she had a conversation with the Defendant about the shooting before he went into Travis’ room while she was tidying the room. In response Ms. White said that the Defendant had come into the house and said, "What's happening?" And she replied, "I am right here on repentance ground." She said she was in Travis’ room when the Defendant knocked on the door. She said she repeated to the Defendant: "I am right here on repentance ground." Mr. Heslop said that that was not in the statement, and she said that was only because they did not write "the repentance ground two times."

¶ [75] She told the Court that the Defendant asked her if she knew who killed the boy and she said, "no," to which the Defendant said: "Me kill him. Me kill the pussyhole boy." Defence counsel asked Ms. White why she had not told the police that the Defendant had used the word "pussyhole" – had she made a mistake, or had she forgotten? Ms. White said: "I told them that he told me he killed the P O boy, and they said call out the word and I call it out – P O boy – because I did not want to use it like he use it."
Ms. White said what she was saying was the truth and that she was not telling any lies. She said after he, the Defendant, told her about killing Tyrone, she was "sick for the rest of the day" and said to herself "no this can't be real."

¶ [76] Mr. Heslop said there was no reason for the Defendant to have told her about the killing and he asked Ms. White: "Did you ask him why are you telling me...?" Ms. White replied: "I just tell myself God send him to confess to me." Defence counsel asked: "So you say God told Mr. Ebanks to confess to you?" And Ms White replied: "God have a reason for every truth to come out."

¶ [77] Mr. Heslop in further cross examination asked Ms. White if that was her clear recollection and she replied yes. Mr. Heslop asked: "Is there any chance you have got it wrong?" and she replied "No. No, sir."

¶ [78] Returning to the day of the shooting Mr. Heslop asked Ms. White why was it that at first she pretended not to have heard the gunshot. Ms. White said it was because "in that yard you expect anything, anytime, any moment." Asked again why she pretended not to hear the shot, she said, "As I said before, Sir, I expect anything, anytime in that particular yard. I just
pretend I didn’t hear it at the time but I said to myself what the hell is going on..." Asked again why she pretended not to hear the shot she replied: "I would say because it is a troubled yard, so I know that anything could go on at any moment." Mr. Heslop asked why did she not stop Ms. Webster from going outside to check on the shot and he put it to Ms. White: "Tishara is your employer, weren’t you worried about her going outside?" Ms. White said, "Well it’s her yard if she wants to go she can go I can’t stop her." Again Ms. White was asked why did she not ask Ms. Webster to be careful and her response was: "You see, because she is known round there, nobody would be troubling her, so I didn’t really want to stop her."

¶ [79] Asked again about the confession the Defendant had made to her that he killed Tyrone Burrell, and asked why would the Defendant confess to her when "everybody knew that you had worked at a police station in Jamaica." Ms. White said, "Yes. I did not hide where I worked." Mr. Heslop said “Leonard knew you worked at a police station so why would he confide in you?”
Ms. White replied: "He confide in me. He has a lot of confidence in me. He tell me a lot of things." Mr. Heslop vigorously questioned Ms. White – asking “what things” the Defendant had told her and Ms. White said: "Like what? ...We are talking about Mr. Burrell's death." Asked repeatedly and for some time about what things she had been told by the Defendant Ms. White asked: "Did he tell you the things he tell me?" Asked again about what things the Defendant had told her about and whether the Defendant had confessed other matters to her Ms. White said the Defendant told her about: "...a white man who died in West Bay and how he dropped a block in his head and put him in the back of his own car and drove him and burned him." About the Defendant confiding things in her Ms. White said: "After he came out of prison he confide in me everything he did." Asked why she had not gone to the police when she heard about the killing of the white man, she said she did not go to the police and she was not thinking of going to them because she did not take the first confession seriously.
Mr. Heslop, asking about the first confession asked Ms. White: “Did you ask him why are you telling me these things?” Ms. White replied, “No I did not. The only thing I asked him is why he have to be doing this?” Asked again whether she went to the police as soon as the Defendant had confessed about killing the white man, Ms. White said: “I told the police on the 3rd.” Asked by Defence counsel: “Why didn’t you go to the police as soon as he told you or within a day?” Ms. White replied: “I was shoked up. I didn’t know this little island had someone like that.” Asked why she did not go to the police about the killing of the man with the concrete block she said, “I did not take him to be so dangerous.” Mr. Heslop continued with his cross examination on the confession and said, “Ms. White that’s nonsense, isn’t it? He never confessed to you on any occasion about killing anybody.” Ms. White replied: “It’s not nonsense. It’s true.” Mr. Heslop asked Ms. White if the Defendant had told her that he shot Tyrone Burrell with a gun and she replied:
"Yes sir."

¶ [82] Mr. Heslop submitted to Ms. White that the Defendant never showed her the gun and she said he had showed her the gun. She said the first time she saw it was in the yard, and the only gun she saw was the one "Tonio showed me."

¶ [83] She said she did not count the number of times the Defendant showed her the gun, because on a daily basis he had the gun. Ms. White said the Defendant said he had to walk with the gun because: "...they want to kill him and that's his protection." She said she did not count the times he showed her the gun but he had it with him on a daily basis. She said: "I know he have it all the time because I watch him...he show me the gun all the while." Referring to her deposition where she told the police that she had seen the Defendant with the gun about four (4) times and asked if it was more than four times that she saw the gun, Ms. White said, "Yes sir."

¶ [84] Ms. White agreed that she would let the Defendant play with the children even when she suspected he had the gun with him and she explained: "I cannot stop him from playing with the kids...I would be in trouble if I stopped him from playing with the children."

¶ [85] Ms. White told the Court that on the 21st September 2010 she had asked the Defendant to get some bleach but he would not go to get the bleach because
the shop was near the police station so he went to get rid of his gun before going to the shop near to the police station. Mr. Heslop asked why didn’t you tell him to take his gun in case someone attacked him and Ms. White said, "No. Why should I ask him that?"

¶ [86] Ms. White said that on the 2nd October 2010 everybody knew that she was leaving the following day and the Defendant came and asked her for her telephone numbers and address, but she did not give the information to him.

¶ [87] Under cross examination Ms. White said that on the 15th October 2010 the Defendant called her in Jamaica and he asked her to pray for him because he was now in trouble over the Tyrone Burrell murder.

¶ [88] Ms. White was asked whether she had told the police that Ms. Webster’s brother had given the Defendant her telephone number in Jamaica and she said she knew Ms. Webster’s brother was in prison and that would be the only way the Defendant would get her telephone number. Ms. White could not recall whether she just assumed that or whether she had asked the Defendant where he had got her telephone number and he told her that. Under cross examination Ms. White was asked if she had asked the Defendant where he got her number and she said: "I did ask him." Asked by counsel: "Why did you tell the Court below [the Summary Court] that you didn’t ask him?" Ms. White replied: "I didn’t see it as necessary."

¶ [89] Under cross examination Ms. White admitted that she was paid CI$400 per month which came from the Cayman Islands authorities and not the police. She agreed that in total she had been paid approximately CI$5,000.00 and this money came to her on a monthly basis through the Western Union. Re-examination by the Crown

¶ [90] Ms. White explained that she never told her employer that she was giving statements to the police. Asked why, and Ms. White said it was because the Defendant was a relative of her employers. "I don't know what would happen. I have to secure myself." She said in order that her employers at 177 would not know, she went to the church and she would call the police to the church to come and get her, and therefore the routine that her employers were aware of was not altered. Asked about her response to Defence counsel when she said she did not have "the space" to tell the police what she knew on the first occasions when she met with the police, Ms. White explained that what she meant was that her employers were always present and she did not feel she could speak to the police on those occasions. She said that when she would go to church in the evenings she would call the police and they would pick her up at the church and then go to the police station to make her statements, and then either get back to 177 by bus or the police would drive her partway. Ms. White said she was very afraid during this period. She was even afraid when she went to have her fingerprints and swabs taken.

¶ [91] Mr. Ward, referring to her cross-examination by Mr. Heslop, said to Ms. White: "You were also asked where you were when you first saw 'Tonio on the 8th.'" Ms. White explained to Ms. Ward that she was making food at the time in the kitchen and she saw the Defendant pass swiftly. She said she left the kitchen and went on to the walkway and saw the Defendant heading towards the mango tree. Asked by Mr. Ward: "So you saw him twice?" Ms. White replied: "Yes Sir." Ms. White, in response to Mr. Ward, said one could proceed right round the house and get back to the area where the boat was.

¶ [92] Ms. White said that she noticed that the black and white handkerchief was wrapped around the Defendant's hand, although she said she could not recollect whether it was the right or left hand. Ms. White confirmed that the hand was covered by the handkerchief but she could see the tips of the Defendant's fingers, which she demonstrated to the Court and counsel by covering her right hand and fingers with her left hand as the imaginary handkerchief.

¶ [93] Ms. White said she did not see anyone else in the yard after she saw the Defendant and before she went back into the kitchen to carry on cooking.
2nd Witness: Nora Ebanks ("Ms. Ebanks")

¶ [94] Ms. Ebanks said that she lived on Canary Lane in West Bay. She said that a number of family members lived on the property in different homes. She said Canary Lane was to the back of the property and Swallow Lane was to the front. She said one would come off Birch Tree Hill Road on to Swallow Lane and then on to Canary Lane. She said Jewel Bodden "she is my family" and her house was 177 Birch Tree Hill Road. Ms. Ebanks described where her brother's, Archie's, house was in relation to 177. She said: "Archie's house is in front and Jewel's house is in back." Asked if a person could walk from Jewel Bodden's house to Archie's house, Ms. Ebanks said: "Yes. There is a little road path." Ms. Ebanks said the path would lead to the back of Archie's house.

¶ [95] Asked by the Crown: "Who lived at Ms. Jewel's house before September 2010," Ms. Ebanks said Travis Bodden lived at Jewel Bodden's house at that time but she did not know the names of the other people there.

¶ [96] She recalled that on the 8th September 2010 she was outside talking to her brother, Archie Ebanks, by the cesspit and she pointed out the cesspit on the aerial map. Ms. Ebanks said it was some time after 7:30 p.m. because she knows that her mother goes to church at 7:30 p.m. and her mother had
already left. She said she was with her brother as he was outside getting water from the hose.

¶ [97] Ms. Ebanks said that while she and her brother were speaking she heard a noise. She said she was not sure what the noise was, whether it was a firework or a gunshot. She said she only heard one noise. She said the noise was to the back of her. Her back was turned to the noise.

¶ [98] She said that about 10 seconds after hearing the noise, the Defendant came up behind her. She said she turned around and saw the Defendant and he was on top of the cesspool where she was. She said that when she turned around she was face to face with the Defendant. She said: "I were frightened when I saw him. He looked frightened too." Ms. Ebanks said she said to the Defendant, "You frightened me." She said after she said that to the Defendant she left to go down to the naseberry tree.

¶ [99] Ms. Ebanks said she could not recall what the Defendant was wearing because she was so frightened, but she did notice that his cap was red.

¶ [100] On the 9th September 2010 Ms. Ebanks recalled that she saw the Defendant at around midday. She said she was again by the naseberry tree. She said the Defendant came over and said to her: "It was good and bad what she done." She said he said, "Thanks for what you have done for me."
She said he then said, "You lucky you did not get your brains blowed out too." She said that when he said that she felt frightened and felt bad about what the Defendant had said. Ms. Ebanks said she felt he was threatening her. She said he left her on that occasion on foot.

¶ [101] Ms. Ebanks said she saw the Defendant again later that day when it was after dark. She said she was sitting down by an apartment talking to one of her friends. She said the Defendant came over to her and told her she should not have got into it: "...because it don't concern your son Andrew or daughter Marcia." Ms. Ebanks said that on that occasion he again said: "You lucky you didn't get your brains blown out too." She said that on that occasion he left her on bicycle and went up the road.

¶ [102] Ms. Ebanks said that on the 8th September 2010 she did see the police officers shortly after hearing the shot. She said it was "not too long after" she heard the shot that the police officers appeared on the property. She said it was about 15 minutes after hearing the shot that she saw the officers.

¶ [103] Asked how long she had known the Defendant, Ms. Ebanks said: "From he was a baby."

¶ [104] On the evening of the 9th September 2010 when she said the Defendant came up to her on a bicycle while she was at an apartment. Asked if the Defendant
said anything else to her that occasion Ms. Ebanks said the Defendant said she was: "...trying to sink him." Cross examination

¶ [105] Nora Ebanks confirmed that there was a path that went from the back of Jewel Bodden’s house, that is, #177 where Travis lived, to her brother, Archie Ebanks’s house, and to the cesspool on which she stood on the 8th September 2010.

¶ [106] Ms. Ebanks said she had known the Defendant all her life and she sees him every day. She said that he sometimes worked for her brother, Archie, and Archie would pay him. She said sometimes he would come to Archie’s house for a couple of dollars and Archie would give it to him. She agreed that the Defendant would beg money from Archie. About the Defendant she said: "He comes to my yard to see my brother. He work for Archie from time to time. Sometimes he would come to Archie for a couple of dollars."

¶ [107] Ms. Ebanks said she did not know the man who was shot on the 8th September 2010 at 177, nor had she seen him in Jewel Bodden’s yard. She said that one day, "I see him at court when I came for maintenance."

¶ [108] Ms. Ebanks said she never heard any talk about the deceased, Tyrone Burrell being a spy for a gang.

¶ [109] She said she knew Travis Bodden very well. She said:
"I used to babysit Travis." Asked if she knew that Travis sold drugs she said, "I think so." Asked if there were always a lot of people coming to buy and sell drugs Ms. Ebanks said: "They come, but I don't know why they come."

¶ [110] Asked if on the day of the shooting there were a lot of people at 177 and she said: "Yes. About 10 people." Asked if there was loud music on the premises on that day and she said, "Yes." Asked if gangster rap music had been playing and she said, "I think so."

¶ [111] Asked about the period just before she heard the gunshot and she said she was talking to Archie at the cesspool for about 10 minutes when she heard "a noise." She agreed that at first she did not know what the noise was. Asked if it could have been a bang from the music Ms. Ebanks said: "No, sir." Ms. Ebanks however agreed that she did not "say immediately" it was a gunshot.
Defence counsel asked: "It was only later when you heard the emergency vehicles and saw the policemen in the yard that you said to yourself it must have been a gunshot?" and Ms. Ebanks replied: "Yes sir."

¶ [112] She said that after she saw the Defendant on the cesspool after the hearing the gunshot she went down to the naseberry tree away from the cesspool and she left the Defendant and her brother there. She said it took her about 2 minutes to reach to the naseberry tree.

¶ [113] It was suggested to her that she heard another bang and Ms. Ebanks said: "No. I only heard one bang." Defence counsel also suggested to her that she saw the Defendant before she heard the 'bang' and Ms. Ebanks replied: "No. I heard the bang before I saw him." It was suggested to Ms. Ebanks by the Defence that the Defendant had already left the cesspool area when she heard the bang and she replied: "No. I saw him a couple of seconds after the bang."

¶ [114] Asked by Defence counsel if the Defendant had been wearing a red cap with the peak at the front when she saw him she said she did not remember his clothing. She said: "I don't notice clothes."
However, Ms. Ebanks said the Defendant’s clothes were “dark clothes.” Further, Ms. Ebanks said: “He told me he had a jacket on. He told me [this] on the Thursday night. He just told us. He told me. That’s what he told me but I only took notice of the cap.” Asked by Defence counsel if the Defendant had told her anything else about his clothing and she replied: “He told me about the black jacket.” Asked why had she not put that in her statement, Ms. Ebanks replied: “I never put it in because I never seen the jacket.” She said she did not understand why the Defendant came to tell her on the following day that he had had a jacket on. It was put to her that the Defendant had never said anything about the jacket and she said: “Sure. He told me about that. That came out of his mouth.” Ms. Ebanks said the Defendant also told her that: “...she was lucky she did not get her brains blown out too.” Ms. Ebanks said that the Defendant had come to her and said that she was his alibi too and that his wife also gave him an alibi. Ms. Ebanks said he told her that he had gone home to take a bath with his wife.

¶ [117] Defence counsel put it to Ms. Ebanks that the Defendant had never used the word “alibi” and Ms. Ebanks replied: "But he told me...he used the word alibi, because he told me that I gave him an alibi too. So he said he had two alibis that night."

¶ [118] Ms. Ebanks told Defence counsel that she had left the Defendant and her brother at the cesspool after the shooting. Asked if she was sure that she and Archie did not go off to feed Archie’s cats, Ms. Ebanks said, “No.”

¶ [119] Asked if she saw the Defendant with a gun when she saw him at the cesspool on the 8th September and Ms. Ebanks said, “No.”

¶ [120] Asked about the gunshot, she said she had heard something like a gunshot, but was not sure what it was. Asked: “Did you turn around?” Ms. Ebanks said: “When I turned around he was right up in my face. He surprised me. I was frightened.” She also said she noticed that his cap was on. Asked why she was frightened of somebody she had known all her life, she said: “What surprised me was because I heard the noise and didn’t know what it was, whether it was a firework or a gun. That’s what frightened me.” She repeated that she was frightened and she said the Defendant looked frightened. It was put to her that he looked startled and not frightened and Ms. Ebanks said he looked startled.
Asked if she had seen the Defendant running and if he had been out of breath and Ms. Ebanks said: "No."

¶ [121] Ms. Ebanks said that she saw the Defendant on the 9th September 2010 at the apartment at Swallow Road. But she said she also saw the Defendant at 12 noon on that day. Ms. Ebanks said at that time "the lady and I were there." Asked the lady's name Ms. Ebanks said: "I don't remember her name. She stays in a room my mother rents. She lives in the area by the naseberry tree." She said at that 12 noon meeting on the 9th September the Defendant said to her: "Thanks for what you've done to me because you saw me before anything happened."

¶ [122] It was put to Ms. Ebanks that she did see the Defendant before anything happened and she repeated that she saw the Defendant after she heard the shot.

¶ [123] Referring to the conversation when the Defendant said, "you are lucky you didn't get your brains blowed out" Ms Ebanks said that the woman who was with her at the time said: "That's a threat," and I said, "Sure it's a threat."

¶ [124] She was again asked whether she saw the Defendant before or after hearing the gunshot and she said that she saw him after she heard the bang.

¶ [125] Asked how did he leave her after the evening conversation at the apartment Ms. Ebanks said: "It was in the night he borrow Imodene bicycle to go up the road." Ms. Ebanks said: "He left walking at 12 noon."

¶ [126] Asked: "Did you tell the police you wanted $100 before making your statement?" Ms. Ebanks said yes and added, "I had no food in my fridge because the government cheque was not ready." She said the police did not give her money. Asked: "Did they say they would see what they could do" Ms. Ebanks said, "yes sir."

¶ [127] The Defence asked Ms. Ebanks: "Do you receive US$600 per month?" Ms. Ebanks said: "Yes." Asked: "When did you start to receive that money?" and Ms. Ebanks said it started on the 6th November. Asked if she knew how long she would continue to receive that money she said she did not know.
Asked if she thought it would end when this case is over and Ms. Ebanks said, “Yes.” Asked to confirm whether she had received a total of $6,500.00 since November 2010, Ms. Ebanks said she had not kept a check of it. Ms. Ebanks was asked by Defence counsel: “You said you had no problems with ‘Tonio but that’s not true is it? You would like to see him go to jail?’” Ms. Ebanks said: “No. ‘Tonio is a close friend. I love him. He’s my family I didn’t have no bad feelings for him.’” Defence counsel asked her if it were not true that she believed the Defendant wounded her brother Archie in the face, sexually assaulted her nephew, and threatened her boyfriend with a knife, to which Ms. Ebanks replied: “I don’t hate him for what he done wrong.” Defence counsel put it to her that in her witness statement she said she would like to see the Defendant go to jail and that there was “bad blood between you and ‘Tonio” to which Ms. Ebanks responded: “No. I have no grudge.” Ms. Ebanks said, “I would like justice to be served whoever killed that little boy” and she added, “I think he should go to jail if he commit the crime.”
It was put to her that this had nothing to do with the shooting, she just wanted to see the Defendant go to jail and she said: "'Tonio was a close friend of mine he is family to me. I love 'Tonio but I don't love what happened. I have no bad feelings, my heart is clear I don't have nothing wrong against 'Tonio." 3rd Witness: Police Constable Emmanuel Brown ("PC Brown")

¶ [129] He is a Police Constable attached to the Drug Task Force. He arrived at the premises at 177 at approximately 9 p.m. on the 8th September 2010. He saw the deceased lying on his stomach wearing dark long pants, white sneakers, white T-shirt and there was a piece of material under his head.

¶ [130] He said he spoke to the Defendant at the yard of #209 Birch Tree Hill Road at 10 p.m. He said the Defendant was dressed in beige-brown boots, long dark pants, no shirt and white boxers. He said the Defendant was wearing a black baseball cap with white "NYC" writing. He said that was the only time he spoke with the Defendant on that evening.

¶ [131] On Saturday the 10th September 2010 PC Brown went to the Defendant to get a statement. He said he was just off Birch Tree Hill Road on a side road at Swallow Lane. He said the Defendant refused to give a statement but he did speak to PC Brown. The Defendant took PC Brown to the cesspool off Swallow Lane, just behind #177. The Defendant pointed out to PC Brown the area where he said he came through from #177 on the night of the 8th September 2010.

¶ [132] On the 11th September PC Brown executed a search warrant at the Defendant’s residence and collected one pair of beige boots, a white merino, a black and red bandana with the letters “USA”, a black jacket and a black baseball cap.

¶ [133] PC Brown saw the Defendant on the 21st September 2010. The Defendant came up to the police car and told PC Brown that he heard that the deceased young man’s father lived in New York and his cousins are thugs. The Defendant told PC Brown that he had heard rumours going around that he, the Defendant, was there at 177 and that he might have been the one who did the shooting. He, the Defendant, said that might get back to the deceased’s father. The Defendant said to PC Brown: “I am going to tell you man, if anyone come and try to do me harm I am going to put them under the earth.”

¶ [134] On the 3rd October 2010 PC Brown and others went to the residence of the Defendant and arrested him.

¶ [135] On the 4th October 2010 PC Brown cautioned the Defendant and warned him that anything he said would be taken down in writing, to which the Defendant said, “No problem.” Cross examination

¶ [136] In response to Mr. Heslop PC Brown said that on the evening of the 8th September 2010 he met the Defendant at approximately 10 p.m. PC Brown said that although he was in plain clothes the Defendant knew he was a police officer.

¶ [137] PC Brown said the Defendant had told him he had been at the scene of the shooting earlier and that was the first time the police officer knew of that fact. PC Brown said that the Defendant had told him that he had gone to Archie’s house to ask Archie for some money. PC Brown said that the Defendant said that he met Nora at Archie’s and he had not asked Archie for money because Nora was there and he didn’t want Nora to see him begging for money.

¶ [138] In response to Mr. Heslop PC Brown said the Defendant told him he had gone home and had shower with his wife outside his home address and the Defendant had showed the officer where he had taken the shower at the hose pipe. PC Brown said the Defendant told him he was bathing with his wife when he heard the popping sound. He said he was not sure what it was.

¶ [139] PC Brown said the Defendant said he got dressed after his bath and started walking back to Travis’s yard. The Defendant said he was stopped by Cannon and Juliette who had told him that somebody had got shot in the head. He said he did not bother to go to the yard because the area had been taped off by the police.

¶ [140] PC Brown said the Defendant told him that he had been at 177 earlier and that the deceased had been there. The Defendant said he left to go to Archie’s to ask Archie for some money and when he got there he saw Nora and Archie. He said he scared Nora because he shouted out. He said he did not bother to ask Archie for money because he did not want to ask in front of Nora.

¶ [141] The Defendant said he then left them and went to check his wife and have a shower. It was whilst having the shower he heard the pop.

¶ [142] PC Brown confirmed that the Defendant was present at his house on the 11th September when the police did a search. PC Brown said they did not find a gun. They found a black jacket, a baseball cap and some items of clothing. PC Brown said the Defendant cooperated with the police.

¶ [143] PC Brown said that on the 21st September 2010 the Defendant came up and talked to him.

¶ [144] PC Brown said that on the 3rd October 2010 he went to arrest the Defendant and again the premises were searched but no gun was found. A number of items were taken including a bicycle, a telephone, some pants, a belt, and a short sleeved shirt.

¶ [145] On the way to the police station the Defendant pointed out a fat lady about 5' 4" tall with clear skin who he said was Nora. PC Brown did not know the lady and the Defendant said that she was the one who "has got the timing all wrong, she is that crazy woman."

¶ [146] On the 4th October 2010 PC Brown recalls the Defendant crying and saying that he did not kill Tyrone Burrell. He said that it was only Nora that has the timeframe messed up. He said he did not kill Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [147] PC Brown said that the Defendant said that Jamaicans had a hit out for Tyrone Burrell because he worked for Damien Ming who had stolen some cocaine, and they probably killed Tyrone Burrell for that.
4th Witness: Police Constable Ewart Mitchell ("PC Mitchell")

¶ [148] He attended the crime scene on Wednesday the 8th September 2010 at 9:13 p.m. He said it was a dark night. There was no moonshine. There was also no cloud cover. He took photographs of the scene which were produced in albums – Exhibits 1 and 2.

¶ [149] He saw the body of the deceased lying face downwards in a semi-foetal position. There was a single gunshot wound in the back of the deceased’s head. He said there was also a striped Polo shirt, which he found beneath the deceased’s head. He said the Polo shirt had burn holes with dark burning around the circumference of the holes. The Polo shirt also had blood marks.

¶ [150] PC Mitchell and other officers searched the scene for spent shells or warheads and could not find any by the boat. On the boat’s trailer there was a beer box with four unopened Heineken drinks and an empty Heineken bottle. There were a few other items.

¶ [151] PC Mitchell discovered the blood splatter on the wall of the house to the right of the van. He said there is a passageway between the house and the van. He said from the displacement of the splatter, the deceased was in close proximity to the wall when the incident occurred.

¶ [152] On the 11th September PC Mitchell attended the post mortem performed on the body of the deceased by Dr. Schuman. PC Mitchell noted that an object was taken from the head of the deceased and labeled EM-40. The object was sent off for examination by the Firearms Examiner, Allan Greenspan, on the 17th September 2010.
Cross Examination

¶ [153] The shirt belonging to the deceased was the subject of further cross examination and it became clear that the edge of the holes in the shirt had powder burns. PC Mitchell said that the firearm was in close proximity to the shirt when it was fired.

¶ [154] PC Mitchell said the blood splatter marks on the wall were caused by a blowback or blood splatter on the wall behind the location where the deceased was shot. Accordingly, PC Mitchell said that the deceased may have been standing close to the wall when he was shot between the red truck and the wall.

¶ [155] In response to the Court PC Mitchell said that the holes in the shirt were both in the front and the back of the shirt, or alternatively expressed, on the inside and the outside of the shirt. PC Mitchell said that probably the deceased had the shirt over his head when the shot was fired, or the shooter held the shirt as a muzzle and then fired the shot. The shirt was close to the firearm when discharged. PC Mitchell said there were gunpowder flakes on the shirt. 5th Witness: Police Constable Orville Grant – ("PC Grant")

¶ [156] On the 8th September 2010 at approximately 9:24 p.m., PC Grant attended the crime scene at #177. He said the police made an extensive search of the grounds but nothing of significance was found.

¶ [157] PC Grant confirmed that he and Sgt. Wright collected Ms. White on the 22nd September from her church. He confirmed that the appointment was made before she got to church. PC Grant said the same arrangement was made
when Ms. White attended the photo identification procedure on the 26th September 2010. 6th Witness: Sgt. Joseph Wright – ("Sgt. Wright")

¶ [158] Sgt. Wright attended all three interviews with the Defendant on the 5th October 2010, the 7th October 2010 and the 10th October 2010 and he formally charged the Defendant with murder on the 11th October 2010.

¶ [159] Sgt Wright said he did not record everything that Ms. White said when he spoke to her on the 22nd September 2010 and on the 3rd October 2010. Sgt. Wright said he tried to record material facts and not unduly prejudicial material.

¶ [160] In response to counsel for the Defence, Sgt. Wright accepted that on the 11th October 2010 the Defendant said in strong terms that he had not killed anybody. 7th Witness: Detective Inspector Burton – ("DI Burton")

¶ [161] DI Burton was not at the scene on the 8th September 2010, but he said that from witness statements, information and forensics, including anonymous information, he gathered that there were 10 or 20 people at 177 at the time of the incident.
8th Witness: Police Constable Kingsley Mitchell – ("PC Mitchell")

¶ [162] PC Mitchell said that from his conversations with the Defendant, the Defendant explained that Tyrone Burrell was trying to set up the Defendant and some of the boys from Birch Tree Hill. The Defendant said he saw Tyrone Burrell meeting with "Fat Patty" outside Kelly's Bar. The Defendant told PC Mitchell that he saw Tyrone Burrell leaving Travis’s yard and meeting with "Fat Patty" and sitting in the car talking to Fat Patty, and therefore the Defendant was of the view that Tyrone Burrell was trying to get the Defendant killed. The Defendant explained to PC Mitchell that he was "one of the elders" and that is why he thought Tyrone was trying to set him up to be killed. Cross Examination

¶ [163] PC Mitchell confirmed that he had lost his notes of his meetings with the Defendant. PC Mitchell said that he had given the keys for the desk where he kept his notes to Sgt. Scott, but for some reason the notes and the notepad were no longer there. He said it was not an official notebook, he had used a notepad because the RCIPS had run out of official notebooks.

¶ [164] The Defendant told him that he was not at the premises at the time of the shooting. He was actually going back to Travis’s yard when he met Juliette and Cannon, and they told the Defendant that Tyrone Burrell had been shot in the head, but they did not know who shot him.

¶ [165] PC Mitchell said that the Defendant said he did not know who shot the young man. PC Mitchell also said that the Defendant told him that Tyrone Burrell
had been told to stay out of West Bay, but on the night before the shooting he, Burrell, had stayed in Travis’s yard. ADMISSIONS

¶ [166] On the 11th September 2010 an autopsy was performed by Dr. Marc Schuman on the body of Tyrone Burrell. This confirmed that the deceased died of a gunshot wound to the head. One projectile was recovered from the head of the deceased. An entrance-type gunshot wound was 6.2 cm below the top of the head in the midline of the posterior scalp. Skin from the entrance wound was submitted for histology. The direction of the path of the wound is back to front and upwards.

¶ [167] The projectile recovered from the head of the deceased was a .38 calibre-class jacketed hollow-point bullet. This type of bullet is normally loaded in either a .38 special or .357 magnum cartridge. Based on the class characteristics of rifling observed in this projectile, the possible firearms which could have discharged it are revolvers in either a .38 special revolver or .357 magnum calibre manufactured by Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Sportsarms_or Taurus.

¶ [168] Clothing and other items were taken from the Defendant on the 11th September 2010. The clothing and the bicycle were submitted for forensic examination. No blood or DNA evidence of evidential significance were found on any of the items. No fingerprint evidence of evidential significance was discovered at the scene. No gunshot residue evidence of evidential significance was discovered on any of the items.
DEFENCE CASE

¶ [169] The Defendant has pleaded not guilty and relies on the fact that he has consistently told the police that he had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting of Tyrone Burrell. He gave answers in three (3) interviews on the 5th, 7th, and the 10th October 2010 and they were exhibited as Exhibit 4A, 4B and 4C.

¶ [170] On the 5th October 2010 the Defendant agreed to be interviewed by Det. Sgt. Wright and Det. Constable Grant at 11 a.m. without an attorney. The Defendant told the detectives that he had nothing to do with the unfortunate death of Mr. Burrell, nor did he cause his death.

¶ [171] The Defendant said he did not know of or suspect anyone who could have caused Mr. Burrell’s death, nor did he know anybody who could do anything like that to Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [172] Asked: How do you feel this investigation will turn out on you, the Defendant said: “It will exonerate me because I have done nothing wrong.”

¶ [173] The Defendant said he knew Tyrone Burrell. He said they were not friends, but the Defendant said he had no animosity or ill will towards him, because: “...he had never done anything to me and nothing in my whole entire life that I have known him.” The Defendant said: “He never did nothing good for me and never did nothing bad for me. I have no ill will towards the young man.”

¶ [174] The Defendant said: "It is quite unfortunate that something like this would happen while I was anywhere near the vicinity, and it has caused me so much heartache and hardship now, even when I have spoken and given a slight questionnaire that I have answered, stating my presence and my whereabouts. I had my wife also give a written statement of my whereabouts in [sic] most of the day when Mr. Burrell was murdered. How I was at home, taking a bath, me and her on the side of my house. I have did everything I can in my power to assist the officers in this case in this investigation and as at this time, here and now speaking, just that I have no further questions to answer in this matter, so I will be giving pure no comments as of now Mr. Detective Joseph."

¶ [175] The Defendant said he lived at 209 Birch Tree Hill Road, which is 100 yards or less from 177. He said he did not own a bicycle, but he would normally ride a bicycle in and around West Bay.

¶ [176] The Defendant was asked: At the time that Mr. Burrell was murdered, and you were at home bathing with your wife, what time was this? The Defendant said he had no watch and no set telephone with a face that is workable. He said: "I can't say times or anything but my wife did tell Officer Brown that it was like after 7:55 p.m. when I came to get her to go and bath. So you can start estimating time from there. She have to get ready to go take a bath because she wasn’t ready, get her things, 'cause both of us went and bathed. Two people bathing outside with a hose and then I dressed
and went back to the session, which has all been given an account of. I told you people them from the beginning. I told Officer Grant who is here and Officer Brown from the very first night of the 8th September when they came and spoke to me at my yard. And the Officer who is here who is witnessing this interview can state clearly that this has not changed up until today's present date. Did I not state to you where I was, what I did, even to the part with the cesspool with Ms. Nora Ebanks, that I scared this lady when going to her mother’s to her brother’s to beg them some money."

¶ [177] When asked about the situation with Ms. Nora Ebanks the Defendant said: "When I left 177, Travis’ yard, I walked through the back of the yard to go next to the adjoining properties in the back of Mr. Archie Ebanks, to beg them some funds, some financial help money. Him and his sister Nora was there. When I popped up – because it's like a little bush part you walk through to get to their cistern, to their cesspool – when I popped up on the cesspool I scared her. I can always remember she say "Oh you scared me." I waited to see if she was going to leave, because I don’t like to beg for anything in front of people. She did not leave so I proceeded home for my wife for us to take a bath because my grandfather was at work and we usually do this thing when he is not at home, because we are locked out of the main house and we have to bathe on the side of the house. I went to my yard, proceeded then to my yard, took a shortcut through the adjoining yard of Charlie Ebanks and family and I went home. When
I went home I told my wife I said let’s go bathe, she then turned back and gets ready, prepared. She comes out and we goes to the side. We were bathing, talking and playing with each other, rowing about the hose – get what I mean? After finishing bathing I came back and got dressed and I was proceeding back to Travis’s yard to the session, the good-vibe building we were dealing with. Just as I was about to reach 187, the apartments, Juliette Ebanks and her boyfriend, Cannon Walton, stopped me and said, “Where are you going?” and I said I am going back to the yard. They said, “No, don’t go there, don’t go there”. I said, “Why mustn’t I go there?” and she said, “that boy dead, you know.” I said, “What boy,” and she said “Tyrone. Someone shot him in the back of the head. He is in the front yard dead, hole in the back of the head.” I said, “What nuh? You talking shit, girl?” She said, “No no, tell you don’t go there,” and she kept forcibly pushing me back because I was still about to walk there, cause I thought she was lying. From the time I see she got aggressive and was forceful I know that she wasn’t lying, so I didn’t go back to the yard that night at all. When I left that yard earlier I bounced Tyrone who was sitting on the white Cadillac in the yard and told him seh “later bloods” and I walked off and I left. I left Tyrone there with a few other individuals in the yard. You people already knows who else was there, true?” The Defendant said Travis was his buddy and Travis is his friend, and that he was at their apartment all day. He said he, the Defendant, was the one who collected the firewood to cook the food. The Defendant said,
"I am the one who does the help round the place, that is where I makes my money. Ms. Jewel pays me to keep her yard clean, cause Travis is very lazy. Travis in turn pays me for help to do things around the yard."

¶ [179] The Defendant was asked who was there at the time and he said he had "no comment."

¶ [180] The Defendant was asked if he had seen Tyrone at 177 during the time that he, the Defendant, was there, and the Defendant said: "Yes yes. Tyrone came there like I believe estimating time I would say like after 2 [p.m.], after 4, I can't tell which time it is cause I have no timepiece. My watch does not work and my phone does not show time, and I wasn’t really too interested when I went out, and when I came back I found Tyrone in the yard sitting down actually to be honest."

¶ [181] Asked what Tyrone was doing there during the daytime when he saw him? The Defendant replied: "Sitting, eating when I seen him he was sitting down underneath guinep underneath the mango tree eating food. That's when I first encountered him."

¶ [182] Asked what was he wearing, and the Defendant said, "I think he...when I bounced him when I left the premises he had on a white shirt and he had something over his head...white piece of cloth...I don’t know if it was a piece of cloth or a towel or what not."
“During the day on the 8th September people were there buying food and alcohol. It’s a vibe building. Gentlemen I know nothing of this young man’s murder, I did not participate in nothing in this young man’s murder. I did not assist no one to get back into that yard to kill this young man. I did not point this young man out to anybody to harm this young man. Tyrone Burrell to me was an insignificant individual. He was not on my radar because he had nothing to me. I have no ill will towards him and I have no happy feelings for him. He was just someone that was there at odd occasions, on many occasions.”

¶ [183] The Defendant told the police: “Tyrone Burrell did certain things in the neighbourhood that he got to understand were not kosher, that is, by him jumping Miss Adeline’s fence, Devon’s grandmother’s yard. Him, Andy Barnes and Ming – this is only hearsay that I picked up from in prison before I even came on the road. Tyrone squeezed two shots in Miss Adeline’s house. After Ms. Adeline’s house ... he’s a fucking idiot. If he know he was part of that kind of enterprise to come back in that neighbourhood... somebody up there ... or... could be the Jamaicans that the 2 \( \frac{1}{2} \) kilos of coke that him and Ming steal. Anybody, somebody wrote him off or somebody set him up to get wrote off because I know it wasn’t Leonard Antonio Ebanks. That’s what I am concerned about. Me. I don’t worry about nobody else. That’s why I refuse to tell you anybody else name in it
because I don’t know who is who and who did what – I don’t know who be smiling in my face today and as I turn my back put a shot in my head too. That’s what I am scared of. I am scared of me getting shot, I am scared of my wife getting shot. I am scared of my kid getting shot…. And people trying to point fingers my way, but why they can’t point fingers to me ‘cause my wife make sure that she took away all of that by doing one simple thing, telling the truth for me.”

¶ [184] Det. Sgt. Wright asked the Defendant if he owned a firearm and the Defendant said: “If it was ever one time I owned a firearm in my life it was in 1990. I don’t deal with firearms.”

¶ [185] In this interview he said that he had lost his hat. He said, “I don’t want to be with the pipe and my hat so I took my hat off, I put it down… I took and got a fright and moved, left there, dark came and I pay it no mind, and when I realise that my hat not on my head I said fuck. Next day I went back to look for my hat, my hat gone. In my opinion some other user found my hat, cleaned it up and kept it for their self or clean it up and sold it to some fuckin’ dealer.” Asked to describe the hat he said: “It’s a black hat. It’s a red hat it says New York, something similar to the red one you guys also have now.”

¶ [186] In the interview the Defendant said that while he was bathing with his wife he heard one clap like a firecracker.

¶ [187] In the interview he said he never threatened Ms. Nora.

¶ [188] On the 7th October the Defendant agreed to a second interview, but said he would be exercising his right to remain silent. He said that on the 8th September he was at 177 Birch Tree Hill when he met Tyrone. The Defendant said: "Travis was in the house – him, Ms. Arlene and them were in that section. I only seen Tishara by the door where Cannon section is, near the music. I walked through the back of Travis’s yard and up onto the cesspool."

¶ [189] During this interview the Defendant said that: "Tyrone was Ming’s gunbag, Ming’s little boy. Ming programmed boy. If Ming said “go kill that” Tyrone gone. If Ming said “go sell that” Tyrone gone. If Ming said “go rob that” Tyrone gone. Even if after Ming beat him almost to death with a gun in his face, these are things oonu might know, but these are things that we know, that is things we hear on the street."

¶ [190] It was put to the Defendant that Travis’s yard at 177 Birch Tree Hill is the Headquarters for a gang. The Defendant said, "that is a lie."

¶ [191] The Defendant also said he had bumped into Nora:
"She it was...before any shot. But she telling oonu the police it was after.... That is just one single individual, you know. Although I come up trumps with my wife and with Juliette it's just this woman, yeah her timeframe now got everything, so I can understand why they see me just looking and laughing and kick, kick, kick. That's why I was glad that she spoke it in front of me and in front of Evoline, so I would like for oonu to find her please and know oonu do that."

¶ [192] The third interview took place on Sunday the 10th October 2010, again with Det. Sgt. Wright and Det. Constable Orville Grant. In this interview the Defendant said he had been at 177 Birch Tree Hill Road. The Defendant said he left his bicycle there. He said he did not return on the 8th, but he went back to retrieve his bicycle the next day.

¶ [193] During this interview the Defendant was asked about Ms. Arlene (White) and he said: "Ms. Arlene. Ms. Arlene from the time I have met Ms. Arlene I have showed Ms. Arlene one face, that's the face of respect and love. And she showed it right back to me and that's just it. Ms. Arlene, she sometimes looks at me and she plays. Like she gets in her spirit. She wants to talk about God. True she knows my religion is Rastafarian, and I do know quite a bit about the Bible. She grabs me up and she bullies me into sitting down and read and play with her. That's my little buddy, man. Ms. Arlene, she is a very nice lady."

¶ [194] The Defendant says that he is not guilty of the murder of Tyrone Burrell on the 8th September 2010 at 177. He left 177 Birch Tree Hill Road before
Tyrone Burrell was shot. He accepts that he left his bicycle there. He said when he was leaving 177 he bumped into Ms. Nora and then went back to his house to have a shower, and that was when he heard the gunshot-type noise. The Defendant says that Ms. Nora Ebanks is mistaken about the time or is lying about the time. SUMMARY OF THE CROWN’S CASE The Crown submits that there are four critical questions for the Court to answer. i. Was the Defendant present at 177 Birch Tree Hill Road seconds before the shooting occurred? ii. Was the Defendant seen seconds after the shooting in very close proximity to where the shooting occurred? iii. Did the Defendant shoot the deceased? iv. Did the Defendant subsequently confess to Arlene White that he had shot the deceased? The Crown submits that, based on his answers in his interviews, it does not appear that the Defendant denies being present at the scene some time before the shooting. The Crown submits that Ms. White saw the Defendant at 4 p.m. dressed in a white merino and short jeans pants, and there is CCTV footage confirming that at 5:01 p.m. the Defendant was pictured at West Bay Police Station dressed in a white merino, shorts and a red cap.

¶ [198] The Crown submits that as Ms. White was with Ms. Webster when Ms. Webster reported the shooting some 10 to 15 minutes after the shooting, and that time was recorded as 8:05 p.m., it is more likely that Ms. White saw the Defendant at 177 closer to 8 p.m. than 7 p.m.

¶ [199] The Crown submits that Ms. White said it was very unusual for the Defendant to come to 177 and not come in to the house to say hello, but rather, on that afternoon, he dropped his bicycle near the door and walked hastily to the mango tree. The Crown submits that Ms. White noted that, at that time, the Defendant was dressed in a black long-sleeved shirt, black cap, with a black and white handkerchief around his hand and, from her demonstration in Court, Ms. White said the tips of the fingers were showing. Having come out on to the walkway outside the house to look at the Defendant when he passed by hurriedly, Ms. White left the walkway and went back inside to return to her task at the stove in the kitchen.

¶ [200] Ms. White estimated that approximately 5 seconds had elapsed between the time she lost sight of the Defendant and when she heard the gunshot.

¶ [201] The Crown submits that the CCTV footage at 5:01 p.m. shows the Defendant in a red cap and also Ms. Nora Ebanks later describes the Defendant as wearing a red cap. However, the Crown points to the fact that Ms. White is clear that she saw the Defendant with a black cap and, alongside this, indeed, in the
Defendant’s answers to the police, he seemed uncertain as to whether it was a black or a red cap that he wore on that day. In any event the Crown submits that this is not a question of identification, as Ms. White and Ms. Ebanks were persons who knew the Defendant, so there was no issue of identification.

¶ [202] The Crown submits that the Defendant was seen some 10 seconds after the gunshot by the cesspool, at the back of 177, by Ms. Ebanks. Again, Ms. Ebanks knew the Defendant and she identified him. Ms. Ebanks had been with her brother, Archie, for some 10 minutes before she heard the singular sound, which she thought might have been a firework. The Defendant arrived at the cesspool via a path through the bushes between 177 and Archie’s property. The Defendant scared Ms. Ebanks and she said the Defendant looked frightened. The Crown makes the point that if the Defendant really had intended to go to Archie to beg for some money, why would he have been frightened or even startled when he sees the very person he went looking for. The Crown posed the question, “How could the Defendant be even embarrassed by seeing Ms. Ebanks, because she was someone he had known all his life and saw almost every day. The inference being made by the Crown is that the Defendant was frightened and startled only because he did not expect to bump into Ms. Ebanks when running away from 177 after shooting Tyrone Burrell in the back of the head.
Further, the Crown submits that although Ms. Ebanks left the Defendant with Archie, he never asked Archie for any money on that occasion. The Crown submits that if, as the Defendant claims, he would have been embarrassed to ask for the money with Ms. Nora there, Ms. Nora had left Archie and the Defendant together and had gone some distance away to the naseberry tree; therefore the source of the Defendant’s embarrassment would have been removed. Accordingly the Crown submits that the Defendant is lying when he said his reason for taking that route was to beg for money. The Crown further submits that the path through the bushes was the perfect route to leave the scene of the crime, and it was merely seconds after the shot which killed Tyrone Burrell that the Defendant was seen by Ms. Ebanks.

¶ [203] The Crown refers to the two meetings between Ms. Ebanks and the Defendant on the 9th September 2010. The Crown submits that this was not a visit to apologise to Ms. Ebanks. It was a visit to intimidate her and to threaten her. The Crown submits that that is the only inference that can be drawn from the Defendant’s statements such as “you lucky you didn’t get your brains blowed out too,” and, on the second occasion, asking Ms. Ebanks why was she trying to “sink” him. The Crown also submits that the Defendant’s pointed references to the names of Ms. Ebanks’s children on those occasions were further examples of the Defendant’s intention to intimidate and threaten Ms. Ebanks. The Crown suggests that the Defendant is saying to Ms. Ebanks that she should not have spoken to the police, that is, she should not “have got into it,” and that naming her children was a direct attempt to intimidate her for having spoken
with the police about being startled by the Defendant some 10 seconds after hearing the loud noise from 177.

¶ [204] The Crown points out that the Defendant also saw Ms. Ebanks as a possible alibi, because he tried to link the timing of seeing Ms. Ebanks with the timing he maintains for going to take a shower with his wife and of showering with his wife at the time he heard the shot.

¶ [205] Despite the allegation of bad blood between the Defendant and Ms. Ebanks, the Crown submits that she is a witness of truth and that she was honest in her answers. Upon re-examination of Ms. Ebanks, upon the conclusion of her cross examination by the Defence, the Crown asked Ms. Ebanks, "Notwithstanding the things he had done, what you told the Court was true?" to which Ms. Ebanks replied "Yes sir."

¶ [206] In summary, the Crown submits that when the evidence of Ms. White and Ms. Ebanks is accepted, it would mean that the Defendant arrived at 177 in a very strange way, dressed in black, with a handkerchief round his hand, moving swiftly, and, shortly after Ms. White sees him like this, Tyrone Burrell is shot in the back of the head.

¶ [207] The Crown further submits that from the photographs, and from the view at the locus, there was no physical impediment relating to the terrain, and therefore the Defendant could have moved unimpeded to the back of the house and to where the deceased was shot.

¶ [208] The Crown submits that the evidence of Ms. White and Ms. Ebanks together, negates the Defendant’s alibi that he was at home showering with his wife at the time of the shooting, which the Crown submits was a complete lie.

¶ [209] Though the Crown concedes that no witness actually saw the Defendant pull the trigger, the Crown relies on the Defendant’s confession to Ms. White. The Crown submits that the Defendant clearly made the confession to Ms. White, and, when one looks at the circumstances surrounding the confession, the confession is true. In this regard, the Crown relies upon the fact that the Defendant himself testified to the very good relationship he enjoyed with Ms. White. The Defendant admired Ms. White as a Christian, who looked after Tishara Webster and Travis Bodden’s family. The Defendant described Ms. White as a very nice lady, and a woman whom he has always shown a face of respect and love.

¶ [210] The Crown also submits that Ms. White saw significant illicit activities going on at 177, but she was a person who had gained the trust of her employers and the Defendant.

¶ [211] The Crown submits that the Defendant was the only person who told Ms. White that the deceased had been a spy.

¶ [212] The Crown submits that the inconsistencies which the Defence highlights are not serious, nor are they central to the case. The Crown points out, as an example, that although Ms. White had told the police that she first met the Defendant in March, and then later told the police that she met the Defendant
in April, and then told the Court that she met the Defendant in June, Ms. White candidly admitted that this was a mistake. Her explanation was that, that at the time of giving her evidence she was shaken, and it was only after she had time to reflect, that she recalled that she first knew the Defendant in June.

¶ [213] Referring to the discrepancy relating to whether Ms. White saw the Defendant “fling down” his bicycle or whether she stepped out on to the walkway and then saw the bicycle after she heard a noise, the Crown submits that what is salient is that Ms. White saw the Defendant moving hastily towards the mango tree which leads directly to the back of the house.

¶ [214] The Crown relies on the fact that the Defendant had shown Ms. White his .38 revolver, and that the projectile taken from the head of the deceased was a .38 calibre-class jacket hollow point bullet, which could be loaded in a .38 special revolver.

¶ [215] In relation to motive, the Crown submits that the Defendant also told PC Mitchell that the deceased was a spy carrying news between the Birch Tree Hill gang and the Logwood gang and further, that the deceased had “shot up Devon’s grandmother’s house.” The Crown specifically points out that the Defendant told PC Mitchell the occasions when he, the Defendant, had observed the deceased leave Travis Bodden’s yard at 177 to meet up with Fat Patty or Fat Patty’s son in Kelly’s car park. In fact, the Defendant said that on two occasions: “...me, myself, had observed Tyrone leaving the yard and going and sparring with the boys them from Logwood.”

¶ [216] The Crown also relies on the fact that the Defendant named the deceased as one of the persons who wanted to set the Defendant up to be killed.

¶ [217] In conclusion, the Crown maintains that the evidence against the Defendant is cogent, that is, the Defendant had motive, he had opportunity, he was in possession of a firearm of a type that fired the bullet recovered from the head of the deceased, and, he confessed the crime to a witness with whom he clearly had a relationship of mutual love and respect. Accordingly, the Crown submits that this leads to the sure conclusion that the Defendant murdered Tyrone Burrell. SUMMARY OF DEFENCE CASE

¶ [218] The Defence has chosen not to call any witnesses. The Defence reminds the Court that the Defendant is not here to prove his innocence. The Defendant is entitled to submit, and, through the Defence, does submit that the prosecution has not provided any sufficient reliable evidence for the Court to convict upon it. The Defence submits that it has not called any evidence, and this is a right that he has exercised, particularly in circumstances when the Defence submits that he has given a full account throughout – from the 8th September 2010 to the 11th October 2010 – even after his counsel had advised him to say nothing.

¶ [219] The Defence submits that the evidence of the key witnesses – Ms. White and Ms. Ebanks – is full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and, contradictions.

¶ [220] Defence submits that there were other persons at 177, and there must be some doubt as to whether the Defendant could have physically been the shooter and seen by the witnesses as described in their locations.

¶ [221] The Defence does not concede that the witnesses are not lying. In fact, the Defence submits that they are either lying or their evidence is such that it cannot be relied upon and, also, their credibility is very much in question. Ms White

¶ [222] The Defence submits that Ms. White is a fantasist. She admitted seeing a vision of the deceased and, the Defence submits, without meaning any disrespect to her, that she imagines seeing people.

¶ [223] The Defence submits that Ms. White’s evidence cannot be relied upon because for weeks she does nothing about the Defendant’s confession to either the killing of the white man with the concrete block, or the killing of Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [224] The Defence also relies upon the fact that Ms. White never reported to the police the other criminal activity that she saw taking place at 177 on a daily basis. The Defence submits that the fact that she could have an image of Tyrone Burrell being in danger, and in addition not tell the police about the confession to the killing of Tyrone Burrell at an earlier stage, makes her a very dangerous witness.
Inaccuracies, Inconsistencies and Contradictions relating to Ms. White’s evidence

¶ [225] Meeting the Defendant The Defence submits that the witness changed her story about when she first met the Defendant; was it March, April or June 2010. In her statement of the 22nd September 2010 she said she met the Defendant in March. However, in her statement of the 3rd October she said March and then changed it to April. Further, in viva voce evidence she says it was June 2010. The Defence does not accept her explanation that she was shaken and, further, the Defence posed the question why she did not tell the police at the time that she was frightened or shaken.

¶ [226] Seeing the Defendant just prior to the Shooting The Defence also points out that Ms. White initially told the police that she saw the Defendant drop his bicycle somewhere close to the house and the mango tree, and then later, she said she did not see him drop it. Ms. White’s evidence that there was light on the two eaves, as well as light from the kitchen, is in doubt when placed against the evidence from the photographs taken by the police, which indicate that the lights on the eaves were off when the photographs were taken later that evening. In her evidence, Ms. White says that the Defendant wore a “black tall-sleeve shirt” whilst her statement records that she said the Defendant was wearing a jacket. Ms. White said she did not tell the police that the Defendant was
wearing a black jacket, and she said the police made a mistake. This, according to Defence counsel, cannot be rationalized by Ms. White’s avowal that she had told the police “black tall-sleeve shirt” but they wrote down jacket. Additionally, Ms. White said there was nobody else in the yard when she went on to the walkway and saw the Defendant moving swiftly towards the mango tree. In this regard the Defence raises the point, in contrast, that Det. Inspector Burton said that his enquiries revealed that there were “10 to 20 people” in the yard around the time of the shooting. The Defence also submits that on the evidence of Ms. White, it would not be possible for the Defendant to get round the house – from the mango tree, to the boat – in a matter of a few seconds. The Defence submits that under cross examination, in response to a question from Mr. Heslop, Ms. White had formed the view that the Defendant could not have shot Tyrone Burrell because he was going in the opposite direction.

¶ [227] First visit to the Police Station Ms. White said she went with both children to the police station when she accompanied Ms. Webster to report the shooting, yet, according to Defence counsel, Admission #6 puts “the matter beyond peradventure” in that, it records that Ms. Webster and Ms. White were accompanied by a young boy to the police station.

¶ [228] The Defence submits that if Ms. White was actually a God-fearing and law abiding person, why did she fail to tell the police anything about the
Defendant’s confessions when she met with them on the 8th and 15th of September 2010.

¶ [229] Hearing the gunshot The Defence also submits that the fact that Ms. White pretended to Ms. Webster that she did not hear the gunshot, affects her credibility. In this regard the Defence submits that this act on Ms. White’s part was so extraordinary and goes to the heart of the questions being posed by the Defence about Ms. White’s credibility and truthfulness.

¶ [230] The Confession The Defence submits, in relation to the confession itself, that Ms. White is unreliable, in that Ms. White says the confession discussion all took place in Travis Bodden’s room. However, later, Ms. White says there were two conversations – one in the living room and one in Travis’s room. So, again, the Defence submits that Ms. White is changing her story, and providing differing accounts – demonstrating that she is an unreliable witness. The Defence queries whether the second confession relating to the killing of the man with the concrete block ever took place, and if it did, why did Ms. White wait so long to report it – especially since she is not afraid of the Defendant. The Defence submits that, because Ms. White was well known to have worked at Spanish Town police station in Jamaica in previous years – a fact she said she did not hide – she would have been the most unlikely recipient of a confession, and more so, two confessions.
The Defence proposes that Ms. White’s account of the Defendant saying to her that he used a gun to shoot the man (Tyrone Burrell) is inherently unreliable. The Defence asks, what else would someone use to shoot a person? In relation to the confession, the Defence submits that there is considerable doubt whether the Defendant made the confession, and, even if he did, the Court must ask itself whether it could have been a stupid boast in a misguided attempt to impress. The Defence also submits that there is none of the detail one would expect to support the proposition that a confession is genuine and, accordingly, the Defence says there is nothing that the Court can use to support a conclusion that the confession is true. In this regard, the Defence submits that the confession is highly unlikely and does not accept that it took place and therefore it could not have been a true confession. The Defence submits that Ms. White never used the word “pussyhole” in her statement or in her interview. The Defence says that if she had used that word why didn’t the police write it down?

¶ [231] *The gun* The Defence submits that Ms. White’s account of the Defendant showing her his gun is unreliable, as nobody else speaks of seeing him with a gun. Relating to having seen the gun Ms. White initially said she saw the gun four times, and then she said she saw the gun more than four times, and then she also said she saw it on a daily basis. Further, the Defence proposes that if the
Defendant needed the gun to defend himself why would he be prepared to drop off the gun on the 21st September when he agreed to go out and collect some bleach for her. Also in relation to the gun, the Defence submits that, as the caregiver for the children of Ms. Webster and Mr. Bodden, it is unlikely that Ms. White would have let someone who had a gun on a regular basis play with the children.

¶ [232] The telephone call to Jamaica With respect to the telephone call the Defendant made to Ms. White while she was in Jamaica on the 15th October 2010, the Defence submits that she initially told the police that the Defendant had told her that Ms. Webster’s brother had provided him with her telephone number. However Ms. White’s evidence in Court was that the Defendant did not tell her that Ms. Webster’s brother had provided him with the telephone number. In fact, Ms. White said the Defendant did not tell her on the telephone how he got the telephone number.

¶ [233] The Defence submits that in light of the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions in Ms. White’s evidence, it must be treated with great caution especially against the background that she had been paid some significant sums of money since agreeing to testify.

¶ [234] The Defence submits that when all these elements are taken into consideration, the Court must doubt the reliability of the witness, so much so that one cannot be sure that what Ms. White says is exactly what happened. The Defence says Ms. White is a fantasist who “mis-remembers” and who
insists that what she imagines is true, when it turns out that it cannot be true. Accordingly, the Defence points out that all these are matters that affect Ms. White’s reliability as a witness – particularly having regard to the burden of proof, that her evidence must be safe and reliable.

¶ [235] The Defence submits that Ms. White is not a reliable witness, and her evidence should be discarded. Inaccuracies, Inconsistencies and Contradictions relating to Ms. Ebanks’s evidence Ill will

¶ [236] In relation to Ms. Ebanks the Defence submits that similar considerations apply to the evidence given by Ms. Ebanks and first states that this witness harbours ill will towards the Defendant because of the Defendant’s previous attacks on her brother, her nephew and her boyfriend. The Defence submits that it not possible to accept the evidence of this witness who says, on one hand, that she loved the Defendant, and, on the other hand, she says she would like to see him go to jail. Request for Payment from the Police

¶ [237] Defence submits that this witness asked for $100.00 before agreeing to make her statement. Uncertainty relating to sound of the gunshot

¶ [238] Defence submits that it is questionable as to whether Ms. Ebanks even heard a gunshot, as she herself was doubtful at first as to what the sound actually was. Defendant’s attire

¶ [239] Further, in contrast to Ms. White, Ms. Ebanks said the Defendant was wearing a red cap when she saw him. Ms. Ebanks’s fright at seeing the Defendant

¶ [240] The Defence submits that Ms. Ebanks could not have been truthful in her evidence about having been frightened about seeing somebody she knew so well. The Defence relies upon the fact that it is highly unlikely that a killer would immediately rush up and present himself to two people who know him, and this account begs the question of whether Ms. Ebanks is accurate or reliable. 9th September 2010

¶ [241] In addition, the Defence points to inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of Ms. Ebanks, such as, in her statement dated the 14th October 2010 she told the police that she saw the Defendant go up the road on the bicycle on the 9th September after his second visit to her at the apartments, whereas, in Court she said she saw him go up on foot. The Defence submits that the Defendant did not try to intimidate the witness, but it is possible that, because he is innocent, he did not want her to give false information to the police. This therefore would provide an explanation
for his insistence on having these discussions with her about when she heard the shot.

¶ [242] The Defence submits that even if the Court believes that the Defendant lied to the police when he said that he and his wife were having a shower when he heard the shot, this lie may well be innocent, because he gave the police this account to demonstrate to the police that he could not have done it, because he knew he had not done it.

¶ [243] In conclusion, the Defence submits: A. No one saw the shooter, so there is no evidence to identify the Defendant; B. No one saw the Defendant with a gun on that night and his hands were seen; C. No gun connected with the Defendant has ever been found, despite the evidence of Ms. White; D. There is no evidence to link the gun that Ms. White said the Defendant always had with him, with the bullet taken from the head of the deceased as, that bullet could have been fired by a .38 or a .357 E. The Defence also relies upon the fact that the Defendant made no attempt to leave the area for fear that he might be arrested. F. There is no forensic evidence or other supporting evidence to suggest that the Defendant was the gunman. There is no relevant
blood on any of the clothing of the Defendant. There is no gunshot residue evidence found on the Defendant or on his clothing. There is no DNA evidence of any value against the Defendant. There is no fingerprint evidence. The Defence maintains, therefore, that there is nothing to connect the Defendant to the shooting. The Defence therefore submits that the Crown is left with an alleged confession with no detail, with no supporting evidence and only the evidence of a fantasist – whose reliability is “shot through”, and about whom there must be serious issues relating to credibility and reliability. The Defence says there must be real doubt about whether the Court is able to convict the Defendant on Ms. White’s evidence of an alleged confession, and therefore, the appropriate verdict is not guilty. The Law

¶ [244] The Defendant elected to be tried by a Judge Alone, rather than a Judge and Jury, pursuant to s.129 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Cayman Islands.

¶ [245] Our Court of Appeal first dealt with the duties of a Judge in Judge Alone trials in its judgment in K. Richards v. R 2001 CILR 496 when Justice Rowe stated: “When a trial judge sitting alone has advised himself to the applicable principles of law, and given himself any necessary warning, he must indicate clearly in his judgment his reasons for acting as he did, in order to demonstrate that he has acted with the requisite degree of caution in
mind and has therefore heeded his own warning. No specific form of words is necessary for this demonstration, what is necessary is that the Judge’s mind upon the matter should be clearly revealed.”

¶ [246] In R. v. Dave Kennedy Whittaker Cr. App. R. No. 14 of 2006, the Court of Appeal gave some guidelines regarding the duties of a Judge in Judge Alone trials. In the Judgment of Mottley J.A. he adopted the Judgment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland Lord Lowry in R v. Thompson [1977] NI 74 in which he stated at page 83: “While on the subject I might say a word on the duty of the judge when giving judgment in a trial under the 1973 Act. He has no jury to charge and therefore will not err if he does not state every legal proposition and review every fact and argument on either side. His duty is not as in a jury trial to instruct laymen as to every relevant aspect of the law or to give a full and balanced picture of the facts for decision by others. His task is to reach conclusions and to give reasons to support his view and, preferably, to notice any difficult or unusual points of law in order that if there is an Appeal, it may be seen how his view of the law informed his approach to the facts.”

¶ [247] More recently our Court of Appeal in Randy Martin v. R Crim. App. R. 2 of 2010 delivered their reasons for dismissing the Appeal on the 7th December 2010. Mottley J.A. again adopting R v. Thompson [1977] NI 24 also adopted R v. Thain [1985] NI 457 where Lowry LCJ said at page 478: “Where the trial is conducted and the factual conclusions are reached by the same person, one need not expect every step in the reasoning to be spelled out expressly, nor is the reasoning carried out in sealed compartments with no inter-communication or overlapping, even if the need to arrange a judgment in a logical order may give that impression. It can safely be inferred that, when deliberating on a question of fact with many aspects, even more certainly than when tackling a series of connected legal points, a judge who is himself the tribunal of fact will (a) recognize the issues and (b) view in its entirety a case where one issue is interwoven with another.”

¶ [248] Following Lowry LCJ in R v. Thompson and R v. Thain, Mottley J.A. said in Randy Martin v. R at paragraph 31: "From these cases the following guidance may be discerned. A judge sitting in a criminal case without a jury, in rendering his decision and giving his reasons for so concluding, is not required to review every fact and to detail each argument on which the prosecution and defence rely as if he were summing up to a jury. The judge must set out the conclusion reached and make clear the reasons for arriving at that conclusion. He is required to have regard to any difficult or unusual points of law and to show how those points of law have in anyway impacted the conclusion that he has reached."

¶ [249] The Indictment charges the Defendant with murder, contrary to s.181 of the Penal Code (2007 Revision) and the particulars of the offence are that the Defendant, on the 8th September 2010 at 177 Birch Tree Hill Road, West Bay, Grand Cayman, murdered Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [250] Section 181 of the Penal Code states: "Whoever, of malice aforethought express or implied causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of the offence of murder."

¶ [251] As the Tribunal of Fact I have endeavoured to remind myself of the prominent features of the evidence, both on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the Defence, because it is my responsibility as the Tribunal of Fact to judge the evidence and decide on the relevant facts of this case. Accordingly, I have reviewed the evidence and I have also taken into account the arguments in the speeches of the Senior Crown Counsel, Mr. Trevor Ward, and leading counsel for the Defence, Mr. Martin Heslop Q.C.

¶ [252] I remind myself that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and further it is never for the defendant to have to prove his innocence. I also have to remind myself that the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt to a high standard of proof, namely, that I must be satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the charge of murder beyond all reasonable doubt or, alternatively, I must be sure that he is guilty. If I find that the prosecution has not made out the case so that I am sure, I must find the defendant not guilty. Accordingly, I must review all the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty of unlawfully causing the death of the deceased.

¶ [253] In this case there are no eye witnesses to the murder, nor is there any forensic evidence such as DNA, GSR, fingerprints or blood, linking the Defendant to the crime. The prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence in order to prove that the defendant guilty. The prosecution submits that the various circumstances relating to this crime, together with the Defendant’s confession to Ms. White, are such that when you take them all together, it leads to the sure conclusion that the defendant committed the act of killing Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [254] It has often been cited that circumstantial evidence can be powerful evidence. It is important that I examine it with care and consider whether the evidence upon which the prosecution relies in the proof of its case is reliable, and whether it does prove guilt. Furthermore, before convicting the defendant on circumstantial evidence, I must consider whether it reveals any other circumstances which are, or may be, of sufficient reliability and strength to weaken or destroy the prosecution’s case. Finally, I have to warn myself to
be careful to distinguish between arriving at conclusions, based on reliable circumstantial evidence, and mere speculation.

¶ [255] In respect of circumstantial evidence I gain considerable assistance from the decision of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in R v. Courtney [2007] NICA 6, [2007] NI 178 and the judgment of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Kerr where he states at paragraph 20: "Where, as in this case, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the Defendant's guilt, it is well established that a particular approach to the evaluation of the evidence is required. This is perhaps still best encapsulated in the well known passage from the judgment of Pollock CB in R v. Exall [1866] 4 F&F 922 at 928; 176 ER 850 at 853 and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in R v. Meehan No. 2 [1991] 6 NIJB 1:- "What the jury (the Tribunal of fact) has to consider in each case is, what is the fair inference to be drawn from all the circumstances before them, and whether they believe the account given by the prisoner is, under the circumstances, reasonable and probable or otherwise. ....Thus it is that all the circumstances must be considered together. It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any one link broke, the chain would fall. It is more likely the case of a rope composed of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence – there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of." Conclusion

¶ [256] On the 8th September 2010 there clearly had been some people in the yard at 177, in fact Ms. White said there were approximately 8 persons and there
was loud music during the day. However, Ms. White said that later on that day, in the evening around 6 p.m., the music was turned down.

¶ [257] It was around 6 p.m. that Tyrone Burrell paid for his hamburger and Ms. White took the burger outside in the yard to him – telling him that, as it was getting dark, he should go home, because she was worried about his safety.

¶ [258] The last time Ms. White saw Tyrone Burrell alive he had gone in the direction of the mango tree at 177.

¶ [259] Around half hour later, and Ms. White said this was around 7 p.m., the Defendant came to 177. He had changed his clothes and was no longer wearing a white merino and the clothes he was wearing at 5:01 p.m. He was now dressed all in black, with a mainly black handkerchief wrapped around his hand.

¶ [260] I take into account that Ms. White said the Defendant just dropped his bicycle on the ground and walked hastily towards the mango tree, in the same direction as Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [261] Counsel for the Defence has asked Ms. White whether she was sure it was the Defendant.

¶ [262] Accordingly, I must examine with some caution the evidence of the witness providing the identification and consider whether the identification is reliable. In order to do this I must review how long, and under what circumstances, the suspect was under observation. At what distance? In what light? Was the observation impeded in any way? Had Ms. White seen the suspect before, and if so, how often and in what circumstances?

¶ [263] I find that Ms. White was only a short distance from the Defendant – merely a matter of a few feet. I also accept Ms. White’s evidence that there was good light coming out of the kitchen door, and from the two lights under the corner eaves. I find that there was nothing to impede Ms. White’s view of the Defendant, and, in addition, Ms. White knew the Defendant very well.

¶ [264] I find Ms. White’s evidence of identification to be accurate and reliable, and I have no hesitation in accepting it.

¶ [265] Ms. White said it was strange and unusual that the Defendant moved hastily past the open kitchen door, because he would always stop and speak with her. However, on the 8th September 2010 he went straight past her moving hastily in the same direction as she saw Tyrone Burrell go.

¶ [266] After seeing the Defendant Ms. White went back into the kitchen and returned to the stove to continue what she was doing. Some 5 seconds after that she heard a gunshot.

¶ [267] The Defence submits that the Defendant could not have gone around the house in 5 seconds and shot the deceased. The Defence further submits that, in answer to a question from Mr. Heslop, Ms. White had formed the view that the Defendant could not have carried out the shooting because he was going in the opposite direction.

¶ [268] I reject both these submissions.

¶ [269] First, it is clear that Ms. White’s 5-second estimate was only an estimate. She did not refer to the existence of a watch or a kitchen clock. It is quite possible that her estimate could have been more than 5 seconds.

¶ [270] From my view of the locus, and the photographs, along with Ms. White’s evidence, it was clearly possible for the Defendant to get round the house in a matter of seconds. There was nothing to impede the Defendant in his movement and further, from my review of Ms. White’s evidence, she did not come to any conclusion, or even suggest, that it was not possible for the Defendant to get round the back of the house and shoot Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [271] All Ms. White said was that the sound of the gunshot came from a direction opposite from the direction in which she had last seen the Defendant heading before the gunshot. I can find no evidence from Ms. White that she formed the view that the Defendant could not have carried out the shooting because he was going in the opposite direction from where Tyrone Burrell was ultimately shot.

¶ [272] The Defendant next appears at the cesspit at the back of Archie Ebanks’s house, where he clearly surprises Ms. Ebanks. Ms. Ebanks notes that the Defendant looks frightened. The Defendant’s appearance at this point is some 10 seconds after the gunshot.

¶ [273] The Defendant’s case is that he was not at the cesspit at the time Ms. Ebanks said she saw him. In his statement to the police he said that he was having a shower with his wife when he actually heard the noise, which he described as “one clap like a firecracker”, and which he later accepts must have been the shot that killed Tyrone Burrell.

¶ [274] I first remind myself that there is no burden on the Defendant to prove that he was elsewhere. In fact, the prosecution must disprove the Defendant’s alibi.
The prosecution must prove its case, which includes the need to prove that the Defendant committed the offence.

¶ [275] I must remind myself that I should look at this evidence carefully and, even if I reach the conclusion that the Defendant is lying, that does not inevitably mean that he is guilty of the murder. An alibi is sometimes invented to bolster a genuine defence. A false alibi may be put forward by a Defendant who is not guilty, because he may stupidly fabricate an alibi out of fear that his own evidence will not be enough.

¶ [276] I accept the evidence of Ms. Ebanks who gave her evidence in a forthright and unwavering manner. From my review of the evidence I have no doubt that she heard the shot that killed Tyrone Burrell, and then, approximately 10 seconds later, saw the Defendant come up behind her on the cesspool.

¶ [277] I accept the evidence of Ms. White that she saw the Defendant some 5 seconds before she heard the solitary gunshot and I accept the evidence of Ms. Ebanks that she saw the Defendant some 10 seconds after hearing the loud noise. Accordingly, I find that the Defendant’s statement to the police that he was having a bath with his wife outside at his residence when he heard the noise, is a lie and I reject it. I also find that the Defendant did not lie for any innocent reason but I find that his lie was deliberate and can therefore be regarded as evidence supporting the case for the prosecution.

¶ [278] I come now to the confession, on which the Crown relies and submits was made by the Defendant to Ms. White on the 10th September 2010, shortly after 10 a.m.
The Defendant denies that he made a confession to Ms. White. Consequently, Ms. White is either lying or she has made what can only be described as a grotesque mistake. Accordingly, I must examine the evidence relating to the confession very carefully. I have to ask myself “Is there anything outside it, to show it was true?” “Is the confession purportedly made by the Defendant to Arlene White a fact, and, so far as I can test it, true?” “Did the Defendant have the opportunity to commit the murder?” “Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved before me?”

¶ [279] One must remember that Ms. White was in the Cayman Islands on a work permit. She was hesitant to tell the police what happened and become involved in anything that would negatively affect her employment. She explained that 177 was “not a pretty yard.” Damien Ming had been killed at 177 and Ms. White knew the yard was used for buying and selling cocaine. In addition, Ms. White kept herself to herself, and did not socialize with any of the neighbours around 177. Ms. White was a helper in the household that was headed by Tishara and Travis. She understood her role as their employee, and clearly valued her job. The Defendant told the police that he “showed Ms. Arlene one face, that’s a face of respect and love, and she has showed it right back to me, and that’s just it.”
The Defendant clearly respected Ms. White’s Christianity and he told the police that he read the Bible and prayed with her. It is clear to the Court that the Defendant was very fond of Ms. White and trusted her.

¶ [280] Ms. White was worried about Tyrone Burrell’s safety. When she gave him his burger she told him: “you supposed to leave now because dark is coming down.” Ms. White last saw Tyrone Burrell alive when he turned towards the mango tree. After the shooting she went outside and patted the deceased three times and said: “You wouldn’t listen. You came in here and you killed yourself off.” She also told the Court that there was nobody else around at that time.

¶ [281] On the 10th September 2010 at around 10 a.m. Ms. White was cleaning and tidying Travis’ room when the Defendant knocked on the door. The Defendant entered and said “What’s happening.”

¶ [282] What I find is that Ms. White anticipated the confession because, having warned Tyrone Burrell on the day he was killed to leave 177 because it was getting dark, and then also having patted Tyrone Burrell’s dead body on the back and lamenting the fact that he had not heeded her warning, she, Ms. White, said to the Defendant that she was “on repentance ground” when he knocked on the door of Travis’s room to come in and speak to her about having shot Tyrone Burrell. Ms. White said that, once in the room, the
Defendant asked her if she knew who killed the boy and she said no, to which the Defendant said: "Me kill him. Me kill the pussyhole." Ms. White was cross examined extensively by a very experienced leading counsel, but her evidence did not change. She was forthright and consistent. Ms. White was criticised by the Defence for not going to the police earlier. I think it is quite reasonable for Ms. White to claim that she was very shaken because this was the second murder that she had known of that had taken place at 177. Ms. White had not taken the first confession that the Defendant had made about the white man being killed with a block of concrete seriously. She had not been anywhere near the scene and she just did not believe it. However, the confession in Travis’s room related to a shooting which she was close to, and actually heard take place. Having seen the Defendant rush past her in a strange and unusual manner, and having heard the shot some five seconds afterwards, it is not surprising that she anticipated the confession, nor is it surprising that she believed it. From my review of the evidence it is clear that the Defendant had the opportunity to kill Tyrone Burrell. The Defendant obviously changed his clothing sometime between 5:01 p.m. and 7 p.m. on the 8th of September 2010. The evidence of the Defendant rushing towards the mango tree, dressed in black with a mainly black handkerchief around his right hand, allows me to find that his attire was specifically chosen to facilitate the murder of Tyrone Burrell with the use of a handkerchief wrapped around his hand, thereby ensuring that there would be no gunshot residue on that hand.

¶ [286] I further note that the Defendant had told Ms. White in Travis’s room that the deceased was a spy, carrying information between the gangs. The Defendant told Ms. White that the deceased had shot up Devon’s grandmother’s house and that he was a spy. The Defendant told Ms. White that he had shot Tyrone Burrell on the 8th of September and also why he had shot him.

¶ [287] I find that the Defendant did have the opportunity to commit the murder and that his confession is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved. In addition, when I examine Ms. White’s evidence relating to the confession, and the relationship between the Defendant and Ms. White, I find that the confession did take place and I also find that it is true.

¶ [288] For the sake of completeness I now return to other circumstantial evidence. Ms. White told the Court that on the 21st September 2010 she had asked the Defendant to collect some bleach from a shop near the police station. The Defendant was unhappy about going to the police station and explained that he had his gun on him. He showed Ms. White his gun. Ms. White described the gun as a .38 revolver with a chrome mouth and an antique handle. The projectile recovered from the head of the deceased was a .38 calibre class bullet, which can be fired by a .38 revolver. I find that the Defendant did possess a .38 revolver which matched the .38 projectile bullet recovered from the head of the deceased.

¶ [289] Although Detective Inspector Burton said that he had received information from his enquiries, including from anonymous sources, that there were 10 to 20 people at the scene at the time of the shooting, I find that the evidence shows that the music had been turned down, it had become dark, and Ms.
White clearly saw nobody around 177 when she discovered the deceased. I prefer the unequivocal, direct evidence of Ms. White, to the equivocal hearsay evidence of Detective Inspector Burton who said he received reports of 10 to 20 people. In my view, when I examine the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions of Ms. White’s and Ms. Ebanks’s evidence, as compared with what they told the police, I cannot find that any of these issues are serious or central to the prosecution case. I accept that Ms. White was shaken by the shooting and the confession. Ms. White knew she was in a very difficult position. She valued her job and she knew that she had to inform the police that a man who was seen as part of the family at 177 was guilty of the murder of young Tyrone Burrell. That is why Ms. White told the Court that she had “no space” to tell the police. And, that is why Ms. White contrived to only see the police when she was supposed to be at church, so that, neither the family nor the Defendant would be alerted to her actions. It is quite understandable and conceivable that the inaccuracies and inconsistencies and contradictions that she made did in fact occur. However, none of these discrepancies alter the material evidence that Ms. White saw the Defendant dressed all in black, rushing to the side of the house without speaking to her, and then heard the gunshot some 5 seconds later. Ms. White did not see anybody else in the yard at that time. Ms. White did not see the Defendant again that night, nor did he return to 177 to collect his bicycle.

¶ [292] I have observed and listened to Ms. White give her evidence over four days. She has been subject to quite proper but extensive cross examination. I have been very impressed by Ms. White as a courageous woman who told the police and the Court the truth about how young Tyrone Burrell was murdered, and about who committed the murder. I found her to be an honest and reliable witness.

¶ [293] I also find that Ms. Ebanks saw the Defendant some seconds after the shooting and he looked frightened. I reject the claim that the Defendant went to apologise to Ms. Ebanks. In fact, I find his comments – that she was lucky that she did not get her brains blown out too, and the references to her children – were sinister attempts to intimidate her. I accept Ms. Ebanks’s evidence and I also found her to be an honest and reliable witness.

¶ [294] Accordingly, the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions, whether taken individually, or cumulatively, do not have any material effect on the case for the prosecution.

¶ [295] Accordingly I accept the Crown’s submission that the evidence that the Defendant killed the deceased is cogent. The Defendant had motive, opportunity, he was in possession of a firearm of a type that fired the bullet recovered from the head of the deceased, and he confessed the crime to the prosecution witness with whom he clearly had a relationship of mutual love and respect.

¶ [296] Based on my review of the evidence presented by the Crown, and for the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt that Leonard Antonio Ebanks is guilty of the murder of Tyrone Burrell on the 8th September 2010 at 177 Birch Tree Hill Road. Dated this the 30th day of September 2011 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court