R v Jordan Manderson - Ruling

¶ IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT NO: 38/10 THE QUEEN V JORDAN MANDERSON Appearances: Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms. Cheryll Richards Q.C. and Crown Counsel Ms. Candia James for the Crown Mr. David Fisher Q.C. instructed by Ms. Lucy Organ of Samson and McGrath for the Defendant Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Quin Heard: 16th May to the 9th June 2011 RULING Introduction

¶ [1] On Thursday the 11th March 2010, Marcos Mauricio Duran ("Mr. Duran") was shot and killed outside apartment #7 at #28 Maliwinas Way, West Bay.

¶ [2] The Crown alleges that the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, was part of a joint enterprise, with Raziel Jeffers and others, to rob Mr. Duran – an Ecuadorian national who illegally sold lottery numbers to members of the West Bay community – and, whilst in the process of being robbed by the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, Raziel Jeffers and others, Mr. Duran was shot three times and died.

¶ [3] On Thursday the 8th April 2010 the Defendant was arrested and charged with the murder of Marcos Mauricio Duran. Evidence for the Crown/ Crown’s Evidence Jeff Kennedy Ebanks

¶ [4] On the evening of Thursday the 11th March 2010 Mr. Jeff Kennedy Ebanks was outside his house in West Bay on North West Point Road across from the entrance into Maliwinas Way.

¶ [5] Mr. Ebanks recalls that it was evening time and it was just getting dark – about 6:45 p.m. – and he saw a white car and a red car, neither of which had their lights on. Mr. Ebanks said that the white car was in front of the red car and the white car went straight down, towards the Turtle Farm. He said the red car went into Maliwinas Way. Margarita “Rita” Martinez

¶ [6] About an hour earlier, at around 6 p.m., Ms. Margarita “Rita” Martínez (“Rita Martinez”) went home to her apartment #7, which was at 28 Maliwinas Way, off North West Point Road. She lived at this apartment with her husband, Philip Cohen Ebanks and recalls sitting down to watch the television series Law and Order at approximately 6:15 p.m.

¶ [7] Sometime after 7:00 p.m. Mr. Duran, the deceased, came to visit her. He sold numbers to her on a regular basis and Rita Martinez said Mr. Duran came to visit her, a couple of times every week. She recalled that on Thursday the 11th March 2010 he came to visit her. She said he drove in a maroon coloured
wagon which he usually drove, which belonged to his uncle, whose last name is Bolivar.

¶ [8] Rita Martinez said Mr. Duran stayed in her apartment for about ten (10) minutes. They talked in Spanish, and they discussed the fact that she was having no luck with her numbers.

¶ [9] Rita Martinez said Mr. Duran was wearing a grey and white striped T-shirt and dark pants. She said he did not have anything on his head. She said she always noticed his hair because she described it as very beautiful. By her recollection Mr. Duran did not have anything in his hands either.

¶ [10] Rita Martinez said that after talking for about 10 minutes Mr. Duran left. She said her front door was closed but not locked and she returned to watching Law and Order.

¶ [11] Rita Martinez said Mr. Duran had not been gone very long, approximately five (5) minutes, when she heard a “thump” – like something had hit her front door.

¶ [12] She said she went to the window of her apartment where she saw that Mr. Duran’s car was still there with the hazard lights flashing. It was parked on the road in front of the apartment. Also through the window Rita Martinez saw Mr. Duran lying by the front door. She then opened the front door. She said Mr. Duran was lying in a sort of foetal position – with his legs “sort of drawn up” close to his chest.

¶ [13] Rita Martinez said that to the best of her recollection he was lying on his left side and with a pool of blood near to his head. She said that there was a light on the porch, which she also called the balcony.

¶ [14] Rita Martinez said she called Mr. Duran’s name and touched his leg, but there was no answer, and then she called 911 and said “hurry, hurry, hurry.” Rita Martinez said she could not help Mr. Duran. She said she was scared and she said to 911 “hurry before he dies.”

¶ [15] She said that whilst she was in the doorway shouting on the phone a gentleman came up the staircase – a heavy-set brown man who was her neighbour, Mr. Bolan.

¶ [16] Rita Martinez said that it was a windy night and also she was a little hard of hearing. Therefore perhaps the windy conditions, along with the noise from the television, caused her not to hear any gunshots. But she said she clearly recalled the “thump” approximately five minutes after Mr. Duran had left her apartment.

¶ [17] Rita Martinez told the Court that her niece, Meagan Martinez, called her approximately one hour after the incident. Rita Martinez said that her niece has a baby called “Jaziel”, who is two years of age and is named after the baby’s father Raziel Jeffers. Rita Martinez said she had known Raziel Jeffers for approximately three years. She said Raziel Jeffers and her niece, Meagan, would leave the baby with her to babysit for approximately nine or ten times throughout the year. She said she would call Raziel to collect the baby and she had his telephone number in her phone. She said Meagan was “always
coming and going” and it’s quite possible that she, Rita Martinez, could have seen Raziel between January and March of 2010.

¶ [18] The Crown relies on the fact that Raziel Jeffers knew Rita Martinez and her evidence confirms that he visited her on many occasions as he was the father of her niece’s child, Jaziel. Kevin Bolan

¶ [19] Mr. Kevin Bolan lived opposite and slightly down Maliwinas Way at #33 and he recalled that on the evening of the 11th March 2010 at approximately 7:20 p.m. he heard two gunshots. He said that he knew they were gunshots and not fireworks. He said they were too loud to be fireworks. So when he heard the first gunshot he picked up the phone and then he heard the second gunshot as he was dialing 911. He said the two shots were in very close succession and not even 30 seconds apart. He said he was walking through his front door shortly after the second gunshot and then he heard his neighbour screaming. He knew the voice to be that of Philip Cohen’s wife, but he did not know her name.

¶ [20] Mr. Bolan’s evidence was that he had spent 7 \( \frac{1}{2} \) years in the US military. He was very familiar with weapons and it was his view that the first gunshot he heard was from a large calibre gun, whereas the second gunshot was from a much smaller calibre handgun. He said the first gunshot he thought came from a .44, which he described as a large gun, whereas the second shot was from a .22 or .38 calibre gun.

¶ [21] He said he was walking across the front of his yard to #28 Maliwinas Way and he was telling the 911 operator that there had been a shooting on the street and asked for the police.

¶ [22] Mr. Bolan said at this point he saw a shadow or a figure – he called it a silhouette – going round the side of the #28 Maliwinas Way building – on the side of the building with the car park. He said he thought it was a male and the figure went round to the laundry area at the back. He said he could see the upper torso. He said he did not see any female parts and the hair was short.

¶ [23] When he reached over to #28 Maliwinas Way he saw his neighbour at the front door of #7 screaming. He realised she was not hurt. He said he saw someone lying on the balcony. It was male with his face facing the road and his feet up against the apartment building. He noticed that right under the male’s head was a pool of blood and also some brain matter lying beside his head, because he could see the meat and flesh there. He said he knew that the man was dead.

¶ [24] Mr. Bolan said he did not want to disturb the crime scene. So when he stopped he noted that Rita Martinez had also called 911 and was speaking to the emergency operators.

¶ [25] Mr. Bolan said that the police and Rita Martinez’ husband, Phillip, got to the apartment more or less at the same time.

¶ [26] Mr. Bolan said it took him about a minute to get over to the apartment after hearing the gunshots, and it took the police and Phillip another 4 or 5 minutes to get there.

¶ [27] At about 7:24 p.m. on Thursday the 11th March 2010 the police and emergency services received a call to come to #28 Maliwinas Way, the scene of the shooting.

¶ [28] Mr. Bolan recalls the two ambulances arriving and two paramedics went up with a gurney and rolled the deceased on to the gurney and went back down the stairs and into the ambulance.

¶ [29] On the landing at the crime scene Mr. Bolan said there was blood mainly under the deceased’s head, although some blood was on the top railing and some had dripped down below onto the concrete area. John Phillip Cohen Ebanks

¶ [30] Mr. Phillip Cohen Ebanks confirmed that he had lived at apartment #7 of #28 Maliwinas with Rita Martinez for approximately 7 years. He said he knew all the residents of the other 7 apartments by name. He said over the 7 years that he had lived there he had no recollection of anybody selling drugs in or from the apartment building, nor did he know of anyone on the building by the name of Mark. Mr. Ebanks candidly admitted that he had been a drug addict and therefore would have known if anyone sold drugs. He acknowledged that two new residents had come into apartment 5, but they had only been there for two weeks and he had not got to know them.

¶ [31] Mr. Ebanks also told the Court that at the back of #28 Maliwinas Way is a trail that goes from the apartments through the bushes behind, on to Ebanks Road, and he said it would take approximately two minutes to get from his Maliwinas Way apartment to Ebanks Road.

¶ [32] Under cross examination he said that this path was not commonly used but it was used, and when he was growing up he would cycle through the path. Samantha Grant

¶ [33] The next witness was Samantha Grant who was a hairdresser who worked with Batabano Plaza del Sol. She knew Meagan Martinez and would see her four or five times a year when Meagan would come to have her hair done.

¶ [34] She recalls Thursday the 11th March 2010, between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. when Meagan had come to the salon to do her hair. Ms. Grant received a call for Meagan on her phone. Ms. Grant could see that the call came to her own phone from Raziel Jeffers’ phone. She said she knew Raziel Jeffers, as he would drop Meagan off at the shop or by her house.

¶ [35] She recalls that Meagan kept getting phone calls on her (Samantha Grant’s) phone. This happened while she was styling Meagan’s hair.

¶ [36] Ms. Grant said that Meagan asked her to take her down the road. Ms. Grant remembers that Meagan did not specify why she wanted the lift, and Ms. Grant assumed that it had something to do with her baby.

¶ [37] They got into Ms. Grant’s car and Meagan directed Ms. Grant to drive to Watercourse Road and then on to Ebanks Road. She said this was around 8
p.m. Ms. Grant said they reached to Ebanks Road five minutes after Meagan had received the call. When they got to Ebanks Road Meagan asked Ms. Grant to stop and that’s when Ms. Grant said she saw a person – a dark figure. Ms. Grant said there was not any street lighting. The person was off the road to the side and then the person, a man, came out from where he was and got into the car. Ms. Grant said Meagan asked her to take the man up to Birch Tree Hill and she agreed.

¶ [38] Ms. Grant’s evidence was that it was Raziel Jeffers who had got in the back of the car. She saw his face and she knew it was him.

¶ [39] The journey to Birch Tree Hill took about six to eight minutes. She said Raziel and Meagan were talking, but she did not hear what they said. She drove from Ebanks Road to Watercourse Road, then, at that intersection, she turned on to Boatswain Bay Road to the end of Finch Drive, and then turning into Birch Tree Hill. Ms. Grant said that Meagan directed her to turn off the road into a little dirt road where Raziel Jeffers got out and walked off to the back of a house.

¶ [40] Ms. Grant said she and Meagan went back to the hair salon where she finished doing Meagan’s hair.

¶ [41] Ms. Grant said she recalled that sometime after 9 p.m., around 9:30 p.m. Raziel Jeffers came to the salon in a jeep with two other males. Meagan Martinez

¶ [42] Meagan Martinez is the niece of Rita Martinez who lived at Apt #7 of #28 Maliwinas Way. Her evidence was that she regularly visited with Rita
Martinez and they were very close. She would often stay over with Rita Martinez with her baby. She told the Court that her baby’s father, Raziel Jeffers, also stayed with Rita Martinez at various times.

¶ [43] The witness confirmed that Rita Martinez regularly played numbers. The witness said that although she did not know the deceased, Mr. Duran, she had seen him visiting Rita before. She said there were times when Raziel Jeffers was also there at the apartment when Mr. Duran visited.

¶ [44] In March 2010 she was living at Raziel Jeffers’ father’s house at 134 Fairbanks Road.

¶ [45] Meagan Martinez recalled that on the 11th March 2010 Raziel Jeffers dropped her off at work. She recalled that Raziel Jeffers picked her up after work in his blue Toyota Windom and took her to Samantha Grant’s hairdressing salon in West Bay. She said she got to the hairdressers at approximately 6:30 that evening and that Raziel Jeffers left her at the hairdressers.

¶ [46] She said halfway through getting her hair done she received a call from Raziel Jeffers on Ms. Grant’s telephone. She said Raziel Jeffers sounded out of breath and nervous and he asked her to pick him up. Meagan Martinez said that during the telephone conversation she could hear sirens of emergency vehicles in the background, such as police cars and ambulances. She said this was sometime after 8:00 p.m. – possibly 8:15 p.m.

¶ [47] Meagan Martinez told Raziel Jeffers that Ms. Grant said she had no gas in her car to pick him up and Raziel said he would pay for the gas. She said she arranged to pick up Raziel at Ebanks Road, which she knew because it was
behind her Aunt’s house and she was aware of the pathway through the back of Maliwinas Way to Ebanks Road.

¶ [48] When she and Ms. Grant first got to Ebanks Road she did not see Raziel. Meagan Martinez said Raziel Jeffers stepped out from behind some bushes and that he had been concealed. She said he was dressed in a black T-shirt and blue jeans and brown Nike sneakers and he got into the car.

¶ [49] They proceeded to drive Raziel Jeffers to Philip Sciamonte’s house around Cobalt Coast, and she noticed that Raziel Jeffers had scratches over his arms beneath his shirt.

¶ [50] She then returned with Samantha Grant to the salon to finish her hair. After she finished her hair she received another call from Raziel Jeffers saying that he would come and pick her up.

¶ [51] When Raziel Jeffers came to pick her up she noted that he was still wearing his black shirt and brown shoes, but he had changed his Nike sneakers and was now wearing slippers. From there they went to Ocean Club

¶ [52] Meagan Martinez said that she had been directed by Raziel Jeffers to give the police a statement that it was the guys from Logwood that did the shooting at her Aunt’s house. She recalls getting this instruction from Raziel on the day after the shooting, on Friday the 12th March 2010, and she ended up going to the station and giving a statement.

¶ [53] In addition, in examination in chief, Meagan Martinez recalled Raziel Jeffers calling other people to find out what went on at #28 Maliwinas Way.

¶ [54] Meagan Martinez said she had seen Raziel Jeffers with Jordan Manderson and she has also seen Raziel Jeffers with Craig Johnson.

¶ [55] She also said she saw Raziel Jeffers with a .44 gun before the 11th March 2010, which she described as a revolver.

¶ [56] In cross examination she said she had been a girlfriend of Damion Ming, and further she admitted that she had been interviewed in relation to an allegation that she was party to a planned robbery of the Numbers Man on the 11th March. Aaron Hydes

¶ [57] Mr. Aaron Hydes recalled Thursday the 11th March 2010 at about 7:25 p.m. He was walking to the Defendant’s house in West Bay. As he got closer to the house he noticed his sister’s car – a white Honda Accord. He recognised his sister’s car by the colour, the shape and the rear spoiler. He saw the Defendant get out of the car and initially thought he had been drinking because he noticed he was limping. Mr. Hydes said as he got closer to the car he noticed the car was driven by his sister’s baby father, namely Craig Johnson. Mr. Hydes had known Craig Johnson for about three years and they hung out “24/7”. He said Craig Johnson and his (Mr. Hydes’s) sister lived together.

¶ [58] Mr. Hydes knows the Defendant by his nickname “Pinga”. He said that, in the car, he saw another man, whom he described as brown skinned, male and about 5 feet 6 inches in height. Mr. Hydes noticed that the Defendant had got hurt, like he had been shot.

¶ [59] He recalled the Defendant saying that his foot was sore and that his foot was broken. Mr. Hydes noticed that the Defendant’s pants were ripped and his shinbone was not in place, it looked bent. It was broken and he could see blood on the Defendant’s socks.

¶ [60] Mr. Hydes recalls the Defendant’s father asking the Defendant what happened to his leg and he heard the Defendant say that Andy Barnes chopped him on his leg.

¶ [61] He recalls the father putting the Defendant’s leg in a better position. Mr. Hydes also recalls some talk about an ambulance. But a neighbour came by in a Honda Odyssey and took the Defendant to the hospital.

¶ [62] Mr. Hydes said Craig Johnson and the unknown passenger, who had helped the Defendant into the chair, had left together. Tina Barton

¶ [63] Tina Barton had been a former girlfriend of Craig Johnson. She recalls seeing him on Thursday the 11th March 2010. She recalled picking him up because at that time he did not have a car because his car, a blue Trueno, was at the shop. She said she saw him drive his baby mother’s car, a white Honda Accord. And she saw him drive it on the 11th March 2010 when he went to pick his “baby mother” up from work. She said his “baby mother” was Chelsea Hydes.

¶ [64] In cross examination she confirmed that the Honda Accord was registration Q3169.
Inspector Lauriston Burton

¶ [65] Inspector Lauriston Burton received the call of the shooting at the Birch Tree Hill and Barnett Close intersection and he started a separate Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS) investigation into that shooting. He and other officers went to investigate the shooting and they went looking for spent shells, impact sites, bullet impact sites, bullet fragments, blood or clothing. He said they also went from house to house to see if there had been any reports of any shooting. He arranged for groups of officers to search along Barnett Close, Captain Joe and Osbert Road, and along Birch Tree Hill. Asked what they were searching for, he said they were looking for any signs of a shooting. He said the searches were extensive and over a considerable period of time and they found nothing. Officer Stephen Best

¶ [66] Officer Stephen Best was the Scenes of Crime Officer attached to the Scientific Support Branch of the RCIPS. He arrived at #28 Maliwinas Way on the 11th March at approximately 8:55 p.m. He noted that the area had been cordoned off and he attired himself in a disposable suit with gloves and shoes in order to avoid contamination.

¶ [67] With the photos in Exhibit 1 Officer Best showed where he swabbed the areas where he found blood. With the aid of markers and the photos he demonstrated to the Court where he took swabs of blood found on the stairs, on the landing and underneath the landing. In addition he found and recovered a woolen tam (kitted hat) on the landing and recovered pieces of
lead bullets. DC Best also found and recovered a copper jacket on the landing and a piece of lead on the wall near the door of the apartment.

¶ [68] Officer Best was accompanied by Woman Detective Sgt. Codner and Det. Supt. Bodden, who was the senior officer in charge. He specifically swabbed what appeared to be droplets of blood on the 2nd and 4th steps from the ground floor.

¶ [69] DC Best took all the items he had swabbed and dispatched them for forensic examination. Dr. Ajit Amberkar

¶ [70] Dr. Ajit Amberkar is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in England and is currently consultant orthopaedic Surgeon attached to the George Town Hospital in the Cayman Islands.

¶ [71] Dr Amberkar’s evidence was that the Defendant sustained a bullet wound about 6 \( \frac{1}{2} \) x 4cms. He said there were no obvious bullet fragments in the wound, but there were shattered pieces of bone, torn muscle and profuse bleeding.

¶ [72] Dr. Amberkar said that the entry wound was just below the inner left knee and the exit wound was on the outer aspect of the left leg, just below the middle of the leg.

¶ [73] Dr. Amberkar explained that the bullet must have come downwards and also from the inner to the outer aspect of the leg. He said, by examining the wound and the x-rays, the bullet entered just below the knee and exited down
the leg on the outer side – travelling through the shinbone, and breaking the bone during its impact.

¶ [74] Dr. Amberkar also confirmed that the Defendant had received a fracture of the other inner bone of the leg called the fibular. This fracture was away from the trajectory of the bullet and was not shattered, and his conclusion was that the second fracture was sustained due to a fall and not due to the bullet. Accordingly, Dr. Amberkar was of the view that the Defendant sustained the fall after the bullet had broken his main shinbone.

¶ [75] In cross examination Dr. Amberkar said the bullet entered at an acute angle, approximately 20 to 40 degrees, and he demonstrated that the bullet came in above the leg and travelled down through the leg and outside. Det. Constable Kevin Bogle

¶ [76] Detective Constable Kevin Bogle arrived at the scene and said that when he saw the body of the deceased he also noticed that the deceased had a wallet in his back pocket. Detective Constable Bogle took the wallet from his pocket for means of identification and he said he saw a driving licence which read Marcos Mauricio Duran. Officer Bogle said the deceased also had CI$225.00 and US$40.00 inside the wallet. Constable Trevor Miller

¶ [77] Constable Trevor Miller found a white T-shirt with blood on it on the side of the road along Aurora Drive in the Birch Tree Hill area.
Detective Sgt. Dwayne Jones

¶ [78] Late in the evening of the 11th March 2010 Detective Sgt. Dwayne Jones went to George Town Hospital, arriving there around 12:15 a.m. on the 12th March. He said the Defendant was in the critical care unit with his father, Jake Manderson. Det. Jones said that while lying in the bed, Jordan Manderson told him that he, Jordan Manderson, was walking along Birch Tree Hill Road in the vicinity of Barnett Close, when he saw Andy Barnes coming towards him from the right hand side of the road from the bushes nearby. The Defendant said he, Manderson, began to run and he fell to the ground. The Defendant then said that Andy Barnes came over and shot him and then ran off down Barnett Close. He said Andy Barnes was wearing a Hoodie over his head but he was not wearing a mask and that he, the Defendant, could see Barnes’ face clearly.

¶ [79] As result, Sgt. Jones made a sketch map which became Exhibit 22. On the sketch map Sgt. Jones put four asterisks: i. #1: where Manderson said he was when he first saw Andy Barnes. ii. #2: where Andy Barnes was when the Defendant first saw him. iii. #3: where Jordan Manderson said he fell. iv. #4: where Jordan Manderson said Andy Barnes ran.

¶ [80] Later on the 12th March 2010 at about 11:40 a.m. Sgt. Jones visited Jordan Manderson with Woman Constable Louise Thornley of the Scenes of Crime unit. They told Manderson that they wanted to process his body for GSR. Jordan Manderson said he was not going to provide any GSR.

¶ [81] On the 13th March Det. Jones went to Barnett Close in the area where Jordan Manderson said he had been shot. He and other RCIPS officers tried to find out if anyone had heard any gunshots and they also went in search of blood and bullets. This was the separate RCIPS operation and nothing was found.

¶ [82] On the same day Det. Jones went to the residence of Craig Johnson. A white Honda Accord, registration #Q3169 was there and the officers took the vehicle away for investigation. Snr. Det. Constable Adrian Neblett

¶ [83] On Monday the 15th March 2010 Snr. Detective Constable Adrian Neblett went with Constable Ennis to 27 Cinder Lanc, the home of Jake Manderson and the Defendant, Jordan Manderson. He went to collect a statement and was told that Jordan Manderson was sleeping.

¶ [84] On Tuesday the 16th March he returned to 27 Cinder Lane, the Defendant’s house, and saw the Defendant lying on a bed with his left foot bandaged. His foot was propped up on a pillow and Det. Neblett noticed two crutches next to the bed.

¶ [85] Det. Neblett and Det. Ennis spoke to the Defendant in the presence of his father and his brother about the report he made to the police on the 11th March 2010 that he was shot in the left leg whilst walking down Birch Tree
Hill Road. Det. Neblett asked the Defendant what happened and the Defendant said: "Andy Barnes was the person who shot me. He was wearing a black leather jacket, a black leather jacket with a tear at the back. I see him with it before L1 or in L1 Nightclub when he tried to drape me."

¶ [86] Det. Neblett recalled that the Defendant said: "Andy Barnes was the one who shot me. He made threats to me while in Court."

¶ [87] Det. Neblett recalled that he had been in Court on the 22nd February 2010 and had witnessed Andy Barnes threaten the Defendant. Det. Neblett told the Defendant at that time that if he wanted to make a statement he could always come along to the police station with his parents and make a statement.

¶ [88] On the 18th March 2010 Det. Neblett took a witness statement from the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, in the presence of his father.

¶ [89] In his witness statement Exhibit 16 the Defendant said: "Andy Barnes was the one who shot me and he was wearing a black leather jacket with a tear at the back. Our eyes were looking at each other. I saw him clearly. I did not see him with anything at the time but suddenly I heard a loud explosion like a gunshot and I saw reddish sparks come from the gun. I suddenly felt that I was falling to the ground and then I dropped to the ground. After I dropped to the ground Andy Barnes ran past me and pointed the gun at me and I heard click click click. It was a black coloured gun. From the noise I got the impression that the gun either stuck or was empty. He then ran past me in the direction of Barnett Close and disappeared."

¶ [90] Det. Neblett said that the Defendant had told him that at 6:55p.m.on the 11th March he had left his residence at Cinder Lane to go and see his friend, Dujon, who lives at the corner of Barnett Close and Birch Tree Hill. The Defendant said he had not seen Dujon for a couple of days and he was walking along, going to Dujon’s house, when Andy Barnes came out by the corner of the chain link fence.

¶ [91] The Defendant continued in his statement that after being shot he had got a lift in a van back to his home. The Defendant in his statement said he opened the sliding door of the van and shouted “Daddy Daddy they shot me.” The Defendant said he could not recall who the driver was and even though the driver had got out of the vehicle he could not recall what he looked like, and he did not see the driver and he did not have any discussion with the driver. The Defendant in his witness statement said that Priscilla Mellard took him and his father to George Town Hospital where he received treatment.

¶ [92] In cross examination Det. Neblett recalled that on the 22nd February 2010 Andy Barnes threatened the Defendant Jordan Manderson whilst they were both in Court by saying, “I will shoot you in your fucking face pussyhole.”

¶ [93] Det. Neblett said that they did go looking for the Defendant’s clothing, and enquiries were made, and the Defendant’s mother allowed her home to be searched without needing to obtain a search warrant.

¶ [94] Det. Neblett said when he took the statement he read it back to them – the Defendant and the Defendant’s father – and they both signed it.

¶ [95] Having led the investigation into the reported shooting at Barnett Close and Birch Tree Hill, Inspector Burton received a forensic analysis and subsequently, on the 8th April 2010, went to the Defendant’s mother’s house and arrested Jordan Manderson on suspicion of the murder of Marcos Duran. Det. Sgt Ian Lavine

¶ [96] On the 12th April 2010 Detective Sgt. Ian Lavine was on duty at the interview room at George Town Police station with Det. Constable Adrian Taylor and the female Social Worker. He recalls the Defendant entering the room under the escort of Auxiliary Constable Levy. At 11:18 p.m. he formally charged and cautioned Jordan Manderson for the offence of murder, to which the Defendant made no reply. Det. Constable Paul Innis

¶ [98] Detective Constable Paul Innis was present at the four interviews with the Defendant. In addition, he was shown the custody record in relation to the Defendant at Central Police Station, namely Exhibit 21. Det. Innis noted that there was an entry from Sgt. Lavine with reference to the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, at 11:15 a.m. to confirm that Jordan Manderson was taken from his cell by Auxiliary Constable Levy and escorted to the interview room. Det. Innis also noted that the female social worker was present when Jordan Manderson was formally charged.

¶ [99] Det. Innis recalled Monday the 9th April. He was at the interview room at George Town Police Station with Det. Taylor, the Attorney at Law, Mr. Lloyd Samson, and the social worker. He recalls the Defendant being there
with his attorney, Mr. Samson. Det. Innis said the interview was tape recorded and they had four separate tapes. 1st Interview

¶ [100] Jordan Manderson was asked about his witness statement of the 18th March 2010. He agreed that in that statement he said Andy Barnes had shot him near the intersection of Barnett Close. The Defendant said that everything that he told the police in that statement was the truth. He said "everything is the truth."

¶ [101] In the statement he said he had a good look at Andy Barnes’s face and he saw him for a good minute. He said that Andy Barnes was about 20 feet away from him when he shot him and ran. He described the gun that he was shot with as a black gun, perhaps a .45 revolver with a spin barrel.

¶ [102] The Defendant said he was taken to the house by a van with sliding doors. It was then revealed to him that the police had evidence that he was taken there by a car and not by a van. 2nd Interview

¶ [103] He was asked if he knew Craig Johnson and he said 'no'. Asked again, "You are not mistaken, you are positive that you don’t know Craig Johnson?" The Defendant said, "Craig Johnson, I don’t know that name."

¶ [104] He was asked why he did not submit to a standard procedure GSR test when the police came to him on the 12th March. He replied that he was in too much pain and he just could not deal with it at that time.

¶ [105] He was asked if he had ever been to Maliwinas Way off North West Point Road and he said no, never heard of it. He was shown #28 Maliwinas Way in the photographs and he said he had never seen it and it did not mean anything to him. It was then put to him that they found his blood in Craig Johnson’s car and the Defendant said “mistakes can happen.”

¶ [106] The Defendant then admitted that he had gone to Maliwinas Way to buy some weed. When he got there he saw two guys running and the next thing he heard was “bang bang bang” and he dropped. He agreed that it may not have been a van, but it may have been a white car that took him home.

¶ [107] He then said that Andy Barnes was with Damion Ming. He said they came running to Maliwinas Way and he heard four or five shots and one of the bullets hit him and then they drove off.

¶ [108] Toward the end of this, the 2nd interview, he said that he went to Maliwinas Way with a man called George who was driving a blue car and he had gone there to buy weed. He had $10 and the other guy had $25 and they put their money together. 3rd Interview

¶ [109] The Defendant said it was a white car and not a van that took him back to his father’s house after the shooting. He said that he did not know anything about the killing of Marcos Duran, nor did he see anyone being killed.

¶ [110] He accepted that a white car took him home. He told the police that it was Andy Barnes who had shot him.

¶ [111] Later in the interview he said it was Damion Ming who had shot him with a .38, whereas Andy Barnes had a .45 and they had left in a white Mazda car.

¶ [112] The Defendant said: "I tell you the truth now, I am not going to lie anymore. The whole thing is the truth."

¶ [113] Asked by the police why he had previously said it was Andy Barnes who had shot him when it was Ming who shot him, he said, "Because Andy threatened me." 4th Interview

¶ [114] The Defendant said he saw the guy who was killed coming down the stairs and he saw Andy Barnes and Damion Ming running to him. He said Ming ran up the stairs and shot the man and then shot him, the Defendant.

¶ [115] In relation to the black jacket he said he did not recall wearing a black jacket.

¶ [116] He admitted that he had told the police that he never went to Maliwinas Way and then later changed his story and said that he did go.

¶ [117] He said he went there with this other guy to look for Mark.

¶ [118] Asked why did he not tell the police about this earlier and the Defendant replied: "I tell you all I just frightened and I did not know what to say." In addition the Defendant said later,
"I don't know why, I don't know why, I all frightened up, I too frightened."

¶ [119] It was put to the Defendant that he changed his story on three different occasions. The Defendant said he was now telling the truth.

¶ [120] The police said that they found gunpowder on his jacket. The Defendant said he did not know what the police were talking about. Det. Constable Anderson Taylor

¶ [121] Detective Constable Anderson Taylor was present at the interview on the 9th April 2010 with Attorney Lloyd Samson and the female Social Worker, and he said he was there when Mr. Innis conducted the interview in accordance with the Judge's Rules and with a tape recorder.

¶ [122] It was put to him that he, Det. Taylor, went and collected the Defendant from his cell and that he said to him, "If you don't tell us who killed the man we will come back and fuck you up."

¶ [123] Det. Taylor denied this allegation. He also denied that there was tall young female inspector there at the same time.

¶ [124] Again in cross examination he denied taking Jordan Manderson back to his cell and again denied that he said: "If you don't tell us who killed the man we will come back and fuck you up."
Mr. Simon Duran

¶ [125] On the 14th March 2010 Mr. Simon Duran attended the George Town Hospital morgue autopsy room and identified the body of the deceased as his cousin, Marcos Mauricio Duran, who died on the 11th March 2010. Expert Evidence Dr. Bruce Hyma

¶ [126] It was later established by a postmortem, conducted by Dr. Bruce Hyma, that the deceased died of a perforating gunshot wound to the head. The evidence was that the deceased had been shot through the head. The deceased also received two other gunshot wounds – one over the left eye which left a small calibre projectile in the corner of the left eyeball. In addition, the deceased received a further gunshot wound to the fifth finger of his right hand. Alan Greenspan

¶ [127] Mr. Alan Greenspan is a firearms and tool mark examiner and was accepted as an expert in the field of firearms and bullets. Mr. Greenspan had received six items for examination, namely SB5, SB7, SB8A, SB10, SB12, SB50 – all named after Det. Constable Stephen Best of the RCIPS. Mr. Greenspan confirmed that SB5 and SB8A were pieces of a bullet, which were lead. He said that SB7 was the copper jacket of a fired bullet, and it was from a .38 calibre class jacket, meaning it was fired from a gun where the chamber held .38 calibre bullets.

¶ [128] Mr. Greenspan said that SB10, SB12 and SB50 were from bullets which were of a totally different calibre. His evidence was that those were much smaller and they were .22 calibre bullets.

¶ [129] Under cross examination Mr. Greenspan identified SB12 as the bullet which was lodged in the head of the deceased. Mr. Greenspan agreed that the minimum number of firearms discharged to produce the Exhibits would be two, and the maximum would be possibly six, as the items could be discharged through different firearms.

¶ [130] Mr. Greenspan accepted in cross examination that the items he examined were capable of being kicked inadvertently or picked up by a shoe and dropped. Consequently it was possible that they could have moved from one place to another. In other words, the witness accepted that there could have been movement of items he had examined, save for the bullet lodged in the deceased’s eye.

¶ [131] Mr. Greenspan accepted that it was possible that three guns could have fired the .22, and one could have fired the .38. Kevin Noppinger

¶ [132] Kevin Noppinger is an expert forensic scientist with a specialty in examining and testing for DNA. He produced four reports for the RCIPS. Some of Mr. Noppinger’s evidence was challenged by the Defence expert Dr. Denise Syndercombe Court, but for the purposes of this Ruling I do not require an examination of the differences in their opinions.

¶ [133] The first significant item was Exhibit 23 – formerly SB9, which was the grey tam, which was found on top of the stairs on the landing outside apartment #7. On the interior of this tam no blood was detected, but on examination there was a mixture of at least two males, namely the deceased, Marcos Duran, and the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, on the interior of the tam.

¶ [134] On the exterior of the tam Mr. Noppinger noted that blood was detected. He also found a DNA profile with a mixture of at least three males. Again, he said the DNA matched the deceased, Marcos Duran, and the Defendant.

¶ [135] Exhibits 25 and 26 – formerly SB16 and SB17 – were swabs taken from the 4th and 2nd steps leading to apartment #7.

¶ [136] He found blood on both these swabs matching the DNA profile of Jordan Manderson.

¶ [137] Mr. Noppinger examined SB26 which was a swab from a copper-tip bullet SB10, Exhibit 5. He said he found blood and DNA matching the deceased, Marcos Duran.

¶ [138] The next item was SB60 – a swab from the copper jacket of a bullet – SB7. This was Exhibit 37. There was blood on it. Mr. Noppinger found a DNA profile that matched the Defendant.

¶ [139] Exhibit 43 – formerly LT4 – was a white T-shirt. On this Mr. Noppinger found evidence of blood and evidence that the Defendant’s blood was on the back collar of the T-shirt.

¶ [140] Exhibit 44 – formerly LT6 – was the black fleece jacket. Mr. Noppinger said there was blood on the jacket and the DNA matched that of the Defendant, Mr. Manderson. Det. Constable Joanne Woods

¶ [141] Detective Constable Joanne Woods is an Intelligence Analyst with the RCIPS and she has a First Class Honours Degree in Mathematics.

¶ [142] She gave evidence with the use of Exhibit 13, which was a map of West Bay, setting out the LIME cell site masts, namely LIME 901 and 902, as well as Exhibit 14, which was a document produced by Woman Constable Woods relating to the sequence of telephone calls on the evening of the 11th March between 17:30 (5:30 p.m.) and 23:00 (11:00 p.m.)

¶ [143] Woman Constable Woods interrogated the telephones of Raziel Jeffers, Craig Johnson, and the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, and was able to identify when calls were made and to which phones the calls were made. As a result, she was able to produce a chronology of telephone calls. Chronology of Telephone Calls

¶ [144] At 5:57 p.m. on Thursday the 11th March 2010 Raziel Jeffers’s telephone was at Harquail/7 Mile Beach mast when it called Craig Johnson.

¶ [145] At 6:14 p.m. Raziel Jeffers’s telephone was located in West Bay mast 902 and received a call from a third party.

¶ [146] At 6:20 p.m. Jordan Manderson’s telephone was linked to West Bay mast 902 and he received a call from Raziel Jeffers’s telephone which was located at either West Bay mast 902 or Papagallo mast 903.

¶ [147] At 6:42 p.m. Craig Johnson’s telephone was in West Bay mast 902.

¶ [148] At 6:48 p.m. Craig Johnson’s telephone received a call from Raziel Jeffers’s telephone.

¶ [149] At 6:57 p.m. Jordan Manderson’s telephone received a call from Raziel Jeffers’s telephone in West Bay.

¶ [150] Officer Woods confirmed that there was a 17-minute period of inactivity on the telephones of Raziel Jeffers, Craig Johnson and the Defendant, Jordan Manderson.

¶ [151] At 7:17 p.m. the Defendant’s telephone is at North West Point Road mast 901 and he received a call from his brother, Justin Manderson.

¶ [152] Between 7:18 p.m. and 7:20 p.m. there are three calls between Raziel Jeffers’s phone and Craig Johnson’s phone, and all phones, are in North West Point Road mast 201 area.

¶ [153] At 7:24 p.m. Jeffrey Ebanks makes the first call to 911 regarding the shooting at Maliwinas Way.

¶ [154] At 7:25 p.m. Rita Martinez calls 911.

¶ [155] At 7:27 p.m. Raziel Jeffers’s phone calls Samantha Grant’s phone to contact Meagan Martinez.

¶ [156] Between 7:30 p.m. and 7:35 p.m. Raziel Jeffers makes 4 calls to Meagan Martinez from North West Point Road.

¶ [157] At 8:11 p.m. Raziel Jeffers’s phone calls Meagan Martinez whilst she is at the hairdressers. Alibi Evidence

¶ [158] In light of the Defendant’s evidence the Crown presented alibis for Andy Barnes and Damion Ming from the following witnesses. Barleigh McCarthy

¶ [159] On the 11th March 2010 Barleigh McCarthy said she had got home at approximately 5:15 p.m. from her place of work. When she got home Damion Omar Ming and his sister Melissa Ming were there. Damion Ming is the father of her child who was 9 \( \frac{1}{2} \) years old. During the evening she recalls Damion receiving a phone call that somebody had got shot at North West Point Road, and a couple of minutes later he received another phone call saying somebody was shot on Birch Tree Hill Road. Ms. McCarthy said Damion Ming received these calls close to 8 p.m. or shortly after 8 p.m. At the time they were going out to get some food but, as a result of the phone calls, Damion said he was not going to go anywhere because of what had happened, and he decided not to leave the house for the rest of the evening.

¶ [160] Ms. McCarthy clearly recalled the evening and recalled sitting at the back of the house when the phone calls came, and that night Damion Ming did not go out. It was put to her that she was only giving that evidence because, although Damion Ming was dead, she wanted to protect his name. Ms.
McCarthy rejected this suggestion and said Damion Ming did not leave the yard. She recalled Damien Ming saying he was definitely not going out because he does not want to be blamed, because he got the blame for every little thing that happens in West Bay. Christopher Perry Bush

¶ [161] Christopher Bush lives at #48 Glade Drive in West Bay with his father and his stepmother and other brothers and sisters. He also recalled Thursday the 11th March 2010. He said that at that time Andy Barnes was also staying with him. He said Andy was wearing short pants, no shirt and no shoes and they were sitting outside the house listening to music. He recalled that at about 8 p.m. Andy Barnes received a telephone call and, as a result of that call, he called "the Commissioner of Police". He said Andy Barnes was with him the entire evening. Perry Bush

¶ [162] Perry Bush is the father of Christopher Bush. He also lived at #48 Glade Drive. He recalled the 11th March 2010 and that he returned home at about 1 p.m. He said at the house at that time there was his son Christopher and their children, and also Andy Barnes. He said Andy Barnes had been staying with him since his baby had been killed in February. He said they were sitting out at the back listening to music and playing some video games. He recalled Andy Barnes being upset because he received a telephone call. He said that someone had got shot and Andy Barnes's name was being called. He recalled Andy Barnes trying to call Peter Kennett. He said the telephone call was sometime between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. – probably 9:30 p.m. He said Andy
Barnes did not get through to the gentleman but he left a message on his voicemail. Natasha Thompson

¶ [163] Natasha Thompson is the sister of Andy Barnes. She recalls the 11th March 2010 and she said she got home a little after 5 p.m. She said sometime around 7:45 p.m. she received a message that there had been a shooting in West Bay. She called her brother on his phone around 8 p.m. – shortly after she got the message. She said she got through to him on the 3rd attempt and she spoke to him. In the background she said she could hear Andy Barnes’s children playing – namely, Jamoul and Zaire. She said “I knew it was them, I know their voice[s]” The only other person with whom she spoke was her sister. Chief Inspector Peter Kennett

¶ [164] Chief Inspector Peter Kennett recalled that on the 11th March 2010 he received notification of two shooting incidents that occurred in West Bay. In addition he recalled receiving a call from Andy Barnes at around 9 p.m.
Summary of the Crown’s Case

¶ [165] To summarise the Crown’s case, it is put to the Court that: a. There was a planned joint enterprise between Raziel Jeffers, the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, and at least one other to rob Mr. Duran, the deceased, and, in carrying out the robbery, Mr. Duran was shot and, consequently the Defendant was charged with the murder. b. Raziel Jeffers had stayed at Apt #7 of #28 Maliwinas Way and knew of the visits by Mr. Duran and the days and times of those visits. c. The Crown points to Raziel Jeffers’s calls Jordan Manderson at 6:20 p.m. and 6:57 p.m. on the 11th March 2010 in connection with this plan. d. Craig Johnson is there to take the Defendant away from the scene of the crime in his girlfriend’s white Honda Accord, Registration Number Q3169. e. Raziel Jeffers is picked up by his girlfriend at Ebanks Road, out of breath, nervous and with scratches on his arm after Mr. Duran has been killed. f. Raziel Jeffers instructs Meagan Martinez to give the police a false statement blaming the Logwood Boys g. The telephone evidence is that Raziel Jeffers, the Defendant, and Craig Johnson are all in West Bay on that evening. At 18:57 Jeffers’s phone and the Defendant’s phones are linked to West Bay mast 902. At 19:17
the telephones of Raziel Jeffers, the Defendant and Craig Johnson are all at Northwest Point Road mast 901. h. Mr. Duran is murdered at around 19:20 and the first call is from Mr. Ebanks to 911 at 7:24 p.m. (19:24). i. The Defendant’s DNA is on the 2nd and 4th steps of the stairway leading up to apartment #7 at #28 Maliwinas Way. j. The Defendant’s DNA is on bullet parts found on the landing (balcony area) where the deceased fell. k. A wool tam is found at the scene with the Defendant’s DNA as well as the deceased’s DNA, which the Crown says irresistibly means that there is contact between the Defendant and the deceased at the time of the murder and shows the active part played by the Defendant in the murder of Mr. Duran. l. The Defendant is shot on the stairs leading up to Apartment #7. m. Exhibit 9 is a copper tipped bullet of a .22 calibre weapon found on the landing outside apartment #7 and the Defendant’s blood is on this Exhibit. n. Exhibit 3 is a casing for a .38 calibre weapon. o. In addition Mr. Bolan, who spent 7 \( \frac{1}{2} \) years in the US military said there were least two types of guns at the scene – one large and one small. So, by his account, there are at least two firearms, with the inference being
that there were at least two persons engaged in the robbery and in the killing. p. The deceased received 3 different bullet wounds – one through the head, one in the left eye, and one in the 5th finger of the right hand. q. The deceased is shot on the landing, all the blood is around him, and parts of his brain and hair are scattered on the landing. r. A male person is seen running from the scene to the back of #28 Maliwinas Way. s. The Defendant returns to his home with an unusual injury, namely the gunshot entering on the inner part of his left leg and exiting on the middle to the lower part of the left leg. t. The Crown points to the attempts by the Defendant to dispose of his own clothing. u. The Defendant’s account that he was shot by Andy Barnes and Damion Ming is contradicted by the alibi evidence of Barleigh McCarthy in relation to Ming, and by Perry Bush, Christopher Bush, Natasha Thompson and Chief Inspector Kennett in relation to Andy Barnes.

¶ [166] In addition, the Crown also places before the Court the conduct of the Defendant: a. The Defendant made no calls for help or to 911; b. The Defendant said he did not know anyone was shot until the next day;
c. The Defendant’s account of the previous threats made to him by Andy Barnes, and then his several varied accounts of how and where he was shot and whom he was shot by; d. On the 11th March 2010 at 7:45 p.m. Aaron Hydes hears the Defendant telling his father, Jake Manderson, that Andy Barnes shot him in the leg; e. At sometime after 2:15 p.m. on the 12th March 2010, whilst the Defendant is in the hospital bed, he tells Detective Sgt. Jones that he was walking along Birch Tree Hill Road in the vicinity of Barnett Close when Andy Barnes comes out of bushes, wearing a hoodie, but no mask, and shoots him and runs down Barnett Close; f. On the 16th March 2011 the Defendant told the police that he had been shot in his left leg while walking along Birch Tree Hill Road; g. In his Witness Statement, Exhibit 16, dated the 18th March 2010, the Defendant said he walked to the end of Captain Joe and Osbert Road, where it meets Birch Tree Hill Road, and then he walked to Dujon’s house. He reached the end of the wire fence, which is at the beginning of Barnett Close, and he saw the person coming from about 50 feet away. The Defendant said nothing was obstructing his view and he saw the person clearly. The person was dressed in full black – leather jacket, black pants and black shoes. He said the collar of the jacket was up and it had long sleeves. He then saw it was Andy Barnes. He said, "Our eyes were looking at each other and I saw him clearly. I did not see him with anything at the time but suddenly I heard a
loud explosion like a gunshot and I saw a reddish spark coming from the gun. I suddenly felt that I was falling to the ground and then I dropped to the ground. After I dropped to the ground Andy ran past me and pointed the gun at me and I heard click click click. It was a black handle gun. From that noise I got the impression that the gun was either stuck or empty." The Defendant gave this statement in the presence of his father.

¶ [167] The Crown also places before the Court the Defendant’s Questions and Answers to the police, which is Exhibit 20. a. The Defendant initially says it is Andy Barnes who shot him at Birch Tree Hill Road. When he is told that his DNA was found at Maliwinas Way he admits that he was at Maliwinas and that Andy Barnes shot him there; b. The Defendant says that both Andy Barnes and Damion Ming came with the guns to Maliwinas Way on the 11th March and Ming went up the stairs to a landing and then he, the Defendant, heard 3 shots, and then there were more shots – after which he felt that he had got shot. He said he had been shot by Andy Barnes who had stayed on the ground; c. In Court, the Defendant’s evidence is that it was Andy Barnes and Damion Ming who came. Damion Ming went up the stairs, then there were shots and more shots, and he “collected one” and he thinks that it was Andy Barnes who shot him.

¶ [168] The Crown submits that the Defendant’s evidence about going with George to buy ganja with Mark is untrue.

¶ [169] The Crown submits that the Defendant’s evidence that he tried to hide and duck down on the steps is not true.

¶ [170] The Crown submits that the Defendant has lied on so many points and the Court can take this into account in corroborating and supporting the case against the Defendant.

¶ [171] The Crown submits that the series of facts and circumstances, when taken together, lead to an irrefutable conclusion that the Defendant is guilty.
Evidence on Behalf of Defence

¶ [172] The Defendant said he had left school at 16 years of age, then did some plumbing work with his uncle and worked on the boats taking tourists to Sting Ray City with his father and his uncle.

¶ [173] The Defendant told his counsel that he would drink alcohol almost every day and also smoked ganja every day. He said most of the time when he is with his friends he would smoke "weed" and drink liquor and play games, and sometimes play football.

¶ [174] The Defendant said he had no previous convictions.

¶ [175] Now, there is a Direction under law relating to Good Character:
Direction on Defendant’s Good Character

¶ [176] The Defendant, Jordan Manderson, is a young man who was 16 years old when Marcos Mauricio Duran was murdered, and he is now 18 years of age. The Defendant is a man of previous good character, in that he has no convictions recorded against him.

¶ [177] Of course, good character cannot by itself provide a defence to this charge, but it is evidence which I should take into account in the Defendant’s favour in the following way.

¶ [178] He is a young man without previous convictions, and this is relevant to my consideration of the case.

¶ [179] In the first place, Jordan Manderson has chosen to give evidence and not to exercise his right to remain silent and, as with any young man of good character, it supports his credibility. This means that this is a factor which I should take into account when deciding whether or not to believe his evidence at this trial.

¶ [180] Secondly, the fact that the Defendant is of previous good character may mean that he is less likely than otherwise might be the case to commit the crime with which he is now charged.

¶ [181] Continuing evidence on behalf of the Defence:

¶ [182] The Defendant recalled that after the shooting of Carlo Webster on the 10th September 2009, Andy Barnes began threatening him and threatening his mother and his father. He said the reason Andy Barnes was doing this was because Carlo Webster was a good friend of Andy Barnes, and it was suspected that Devon Anglin, who is a friend of the Defendant, was the one responsible for killing Carlo.

¶ [183] The Defendant said that on the 8th January 2010 he was at a Nightclub when "Andy Barnes came up and draped me by my shirt, took me into the bathroom and said if I don't stop hanging out with Devon Anglin he was going to kill me and kill my family." The Defendant also said Andy Barnes told him on that occasion that he had a new gun, an AK.

¶ [184] The Defendant said that on the 18th January 2010 his mother and his mother's boyfriend received a phone call to say that: "...people were coming to shoot up the house." At that time Andy Barnes had threatened him with a rifle and said: "Pussyhole you are going to be dead tonight."

¶ [185] On the 15th February 2010 Andy Barnes's son, Jeremiah Barnes, was shot and killed and the Defendant said that Andy Barnes was after him more
intensely since that time because of the Defendant’s association with Devon Anglin.

¶ [186] The Defendant was arrested on the 20th February 2010 for another offence and shortly after that, on the 22nd February 2010, Andy Barnes threatened the Defendant again whilst they were down in the cells waiting to come to Court. That Defendant said that on that occasion Andy Barnes said to him: "Pussyhole you kill my baby, I am going to shoot you in your face when you come out."

¶ [187] The Defendant said that on the 11th March 2010, the date Marcos Mauricio Duran was killed, he, the Defendant, was at home, on bail for another offence sitting around, sleeping and eating. He was wearing a black T-shirt with a white smiley face and red hearts, which had short sleeves. He said he wore a shirt underneath the T-shirt. He said he was not wearing a jacket nor was he wearing a hat. He said the only time he would wear a hat or a cap would be when attending a Nightclub. He said he also had on jeans pants with white and black stripes, and he was wearing his earrings. The Defendant said he recalled that late that afternoon he had a Coors Lite drink while outside.

¶ [188] The Defendant said that at 6:55 p.m. he left the house to go and get some ganja and so he decided to check his friend Dujon and then go to look for Mark.

¶ [189] On his way to Dujon’s house the Defendant said he met George at the intersection of Captain Joe and Osbert Road near Barnett Close. The Defendant said George was driving a blue Honda Civic and it was a chance
meeting. The Defendant said George said "Where can I buy some weed" and so the Defendant got into the car and he went with George to Maliwinas Way. The Defendant said he had $10.00 on him and George had $25.00 so they amalgamated their funds for the purchases of the weed. The Defendant said "I got into George's car and went down to Maliwinas Way." The Defendant said they drove to #28 Maliwinas Way and parked on the left side of the building, at what has been known as the 3-window side of the building.

¶ [190] The Defendant said he had the money in the pocket of his jeans pants when he got out of the car and walked across the parking lot on to the grass and round the other side of the building. The Defendant said he started shouting for Mark and whistling. The Defendant said he had previously been to purchase weed from Mark on a couple of occasions. The Defendant said Mark is a Caymanian in his thirties.

¶ [191] The Defendant said he was still looking for Mark and he was at the front of the building when he saw two guys coming towards him with guns. The Defendant said the guys were Andy Barnes and Damion Ming. The Defendant said he could see them both and he could see Damion Ming's face. The Defendant said they both had revolvers and they were pointing the guns at him. The Defendant said they were both dressed in black and Andy Barnes had a hoodie but he, the Defendant, could see Andy Barnes's face and he had dreads hanging out.

¶ [192] The Defendant said he thought Andy Barnes and Damion Ming were going to shoot him so he ran to the steps and then ducked down. Asked why did he duck down, the Defendant responded that he was scared.

¶ [193] The Defendant said Damion Ming ran past him and ran to the top of the stairs and that’s when he suddenly heard gunshots. The Defendant said he did not know how many gunshots he heard at first, but then he heard a few more shots and that’s when he “picked one up” – meaning a bullet hit him.

¶ [194] Asked by his counsel if he knew for sure who fired the shot that hit him, the Defendant responded “No, Sir.” His counsel asked, “Who do you think did it?” and the Defendant replied, “Andy Barnes, because he was closer to me than Ming.” The Defendant could not recall what angle he was shot from, but he recalled he felt burning and pain. The Defendant said he tried to walk down the stairs but he fell on the ground, and then Ming ran past him and both Ming and Barnes ran off.

¶ [195] The Defendant said that as Ming passed him he tried squeezing his gun, and he, the Defendant, only heard “click click click.”

¶ [196] The Defendant said he had not seen Mr. Duran, nor did he see him that night. The Defendant said Andy Barnes and Damion Ming drove off in a white Mazda out of Maliwinas Way towards the sea and the main road.

¶ [197] The Defendant said he felt his leg could have been broken and there was pain, with blood coming out, and he was screaming and shouting and he
hopped to George’s car. The Defendant said he got into the front seat and he was screaming and crying and he felt he was going to die. The Defendant said he then asked George to take him home.

¶ [198] The Defendant said they drove along North West Point Road on to Boatswain Drive and on to Finch Drive, and to the top of Captain Joe and Osbert Road, where they stopped by Dujon’s yard. The Defendant said: "I asked him to take me to me Daddy's and he said no. He tried to push me out. He said he did not want to get involved. He took off his T-shirt to try and stop the bleeding."

¶ [199] He told his counsel that he initially thought it was a van that stopped to take him home, but he now remembered it was a car and there was only one person in the car, and that was Craig Johnson. The Defendant said Craig Johnson took him from Barnett Close down Captain Joe and Osbert Road and on to Cinder Lane. The Defendant said when he reached to Cinder Lane his Daddy and his uncle were there and he, the Defendant, saw Aaron Hydes walking down the road. The Defendant said when he got out of the car his father and uncle helped him to a chair and the Defendant said he told them that Andy Barnes had shot him. The Defendant said he has a cousin called Priscilla who came by in a van and they decided to take him to the hospital.

¶ [200] The Defendant was asked about the grey tam and he said that as far as he was aware he never touched the tam and he had never seen it. Asked how his DNA got on it, the Defendant said he did not know. Asked how his blood got on SB59 and SB60 – Exhibits 36 and 37, which are the swabs from the piece of lead and the copper jacket of the bullet, the Defendant replied,
"that must have been the bullet that caught me and went through my leg." With respect to the T-shirt the Defendant said he had tied it around his leg to try and stop the blood. The Defendant said it was quite likely that his blood was found in Priscilla Mellard’s Honda Odyssey and in the white Honda Accord that Craig Johnson drove.

¶ [201] Asked about the call he received from Raziel Jeffers at 18:20 on the 11th March 2010, the Defendant said they were just friends and it was just a call like any other call.

¶ [202] Asked why did he tell Sgt. Jones that he was shot walking along Birch Tree Hill Road towards the direction of Captain Joe and Osbert Road at the intersection of Barnett Close: The Defendant acknowledged that was not true and said that the reason he told a lie was because he was outside his curfew and he did not want to be found too far from home, and also he knew about the murder and he did not want to be charged with murder.

¶ [203] Asked why he did not submit to the GSR test on the 12th March, the Defendant said, "I told them I just did not want anybody touching me and I was in a lot of pain. I told them I did not want them touching me then but they could come back the next day."

¶ [204] Asked about the 16th March when he again told the police that Andy Barnes had shot him, the Defendant said that he did not tell the truth then nor did he
tell the truth in his statement on the 18th March because he did not want to get involved.

¶ [205] The Defendant said in examination in chief that Officer Taylor had told him that if doesn’t tell the truth “they would come back and fuck me up. Before and after the interview they were threatening me.”

¶ [206] The Defendant told his counsel that he did not tell the truth because he did not want to get his bail revoked and he did not want to be charged with murder.

¶ [207] Asked why he changed his mind and ultimately tell the police that he was at Maliwinas Way, the Defendant said, “Because they found my DNA at the crime scene.”

¶ [208] Asked who did the shooting he said, “I couldn’t tell you, it all happened too quickly.”

¶ [209] The Defendant denied shooting Marcos Duran. Asked if he had anything to do with Marcos Duran being shot, the Defendant said, “No.”

¶ [210] Asked “Who do you believe shot you?” and the Defendant replied, “I can’t definitely tell but it was definitely either Andy Barnes or Damion Ming.”

¶ [211] Under cross examination the Defendant admitted that he did not tell the police the truth and he said: "...it did not make any more sense, and also they found his DNA at the crime scene." The Defendant also said he did not want to name Damion Ming because he lived beside him and he was scared of him.

¶ [212] The Defendant was asked why was he scared of Damion Ming when Damion Ming was already dead the Defendant responded: "He still afraid to call his name."

¶ [213] Under cross examination he was asked, "But if you are a witness and a victim, what were you afraid of?" the Defendant replied: "Nowadays a lot of informers get killed for nothing." He said he was afraid of being killed for informing on Damion Ming or Andy Barnes.

¶ [214] In relation to the threats: The Defendant was reminded that Officer Neblett said that he could make a statement. The Defendant responded that he did not give a statement because he was afraid – afraid of Barnes and Ming.

¶ [215] Asked by Ms. Richards why did he run to the steps, an open area, which were near to the light, when he saw the men coming – why did not run behind the building or behind the bush. The Defendant responded that he did not think about it but at the time he thought it was the best spot. He said he
just kept moving from side to side. When he was ducking down he said he saw Ming on the stairs.

¶ [216] The Defendant said that when he was ducking down he closed his eyes and he heard five shots and at that time he did not know that anyone else had been shot or injured.

¶ [217] Asked why did he not call 911 after he was shot, the Defendant said because he was in shock. "I didn't think to call 911 to get an ambulance. I just wanted to get out of there."

¶ [218] Asked why he did not ask George to call the ambulance, the Defendant said, "I never really know George, I just see him now and then."

¶ [219] Asked about the black jacket, the Defendant said that he did not use the jacket to tie his leg and he added that he did not know which jacket Ms. Richards was talking about.

¶ [220] Asked about the gunpowder on the jacket, he said he was not concerned because the jacket was not "for him [his]".

¶ [221] The Defendant said that he thought the gun was a .45. The Defendant explained to Ms. Richards, "You have 45's you have 38's. The 38 is a revolver and the 45 is clutch back. You pull it back on the top to select which bullet."

¶ [222] The Defendant said he did not refuse to allow the police officer to do a GSR test. The Defendant said he was in a lot of pain and wanted the officer to do it the next day.

¶ [223] Under cross examination the Defendant said he recalled seeing the reddish spark coming from Andy Barnes’s gun. That was when Barnes was at the bottom of the stairs. He said that Andy Barnes did not go up the stairs.

¶ [224] Asked about his lies – about the van and the sliding door he said, “I did not know what side it was or what kind of vehicle it was.”

¶ [225] Questioned about the telephone calls from Raziel Jeffers, the Defendant said he did not recall the call at 6:20 p.m. on the afternoon of 11th March 2010.

¶ [226] But the Defendant did recall the call at 6:57 p.m. The Defendant said the call was of “no big thing” because he and Raziel Jeffers are just friends and he can’t remember the words Jeffers said “after all, it was a year and two months ago.”

¶ [227] The Defendant also remembered the call from his brother at 19:17 (7:17 p.m.). The Defendant said his brother called him to say there had been a shooting at Mount Pleasant and he was just checking if the Defendant was alright.

¶ [228] Asked by Ms. Richards why he gave a different response to the police about the call from his brother – different from the one he gave to the Court. The Defendant said he was confused. He had told the police his brother had called him because he had heard that someone had got killed and he was
asking if he, the Defendant, was alright. However, in response to Ms. Richards he said his brother did not call because he had heard that somebody got killed but because he wanted to find out if he was alright.

¶ [229] Asked why Mr. Jeffers would call about 6:20 p.m. for 37 seconds and then again at 6:57. The Defendant again said, "We were just friends. It's not a big thing. I guess we just call each other."

¶ [230] The Defendant admitted taking hard liquor everyday and smoking ganja every day.

¶ [231] Ms. Richards asked the Defendant about guns and he said he was always interested in guns and had looked them up on the computer.

¶ [232] Asked how he heard about the $9,000.00 - reminding the Defendant that he had told the police that he had heard it on the news, and then he told the police he had heard it on the radio, but he did not recall on which station: The Defendant told Ms. Richards that he had heard it on the radio but he had also heard it from people, but he did not hear it "on the news".

¶ [233] Asked specifically about the $9,000.00 the Defendant said: "Well, people were telling me that part." Asked if his information about the $9,000 had come from the radio the Defendant responded:
"No. I just heard it from people and friends and from people who came into the hospital."

¶ [234] The Defendant denied that he, Raziel Jeffers, and others, had planned to rob the deceased. The Defendant said he knew nothing about any plan. It was put to the Defendant that Raziel Jeffers knew that the deceased sold numbers and knew that the deceased visited that location. The Defendant denied knowing anything about that.

¶ [235] It was put to the Defendant that he left home at 6:55 p.m. that evening with a view to carrying out the robbery. The Defendant replied, "I don't know anything about that."

¶ [236] It was put to the Defendant that he did not go to buy drugs but that he went to carry out the robbery and that he went for a gun. The Defendant denied this.

¶ [237] It was put to the Defendant that he and at least one other person went armed with guns, and they went up the stairs after the deceased man. The Defendant denied this.

¶ [238] It was put to the Defendant that he got into a struggle with the deceased and in the struggle he, the Defendant, was shot, either by the other man, or by himself, based on the entrance and exit angles of the bullet, trying to rob the deceased and then fired shots at the deceased, killing him. It was suggested to the Defendant that either he or the other man, who was in the joint enterprise robbery, who had a firearm, both fired shots at the deceased, killing him. It was suggested to the Defendant that the only reason he knew about the $9,000.00 was because he was present at the robbery, and he actively
participated in the robbery, and that is why his DNA is on the tam. The Defendant denied all this.

¶ [239] The Defendant denied making up the story about George and Mark, and he denied trying to put the blame on Andy Barnes to cover up his own activity. The Defendant denied that Craig Johnson was a part of the plan and denied that Craig Johnson picked him (the Defendant) up after he had been shot. The Defendant disagreed.

¶ [240] The Defendant disagreed that he disposed of his black jacket because he was scared that GSR would be found on it.

¶ [241] It was later put to the Defendant that he disposed of the T-shirt and his pants. The Defendant disagreed. The Defendant disagreed with the suggestion that he tried to mislead the police.

¶ [242] It was put to the Defendant that his evidence blaming Andy Barnes was just part of a plan with Raziel Jeffers to blame the Logwood Boys and the Defendant disagreed with this. It was put to the Defendant that he was still not telling the truth, and again he disagreed. The DPP put to the Defendant that the only reason he was not telling the truth was to make it appear that he was not party to the murder. The Defendant disagreed. Pauline Annmarie Russell

¶ [243] On the 11th March 2010 Pauline Annmarie Russell lived at an apartment at #28 Maliwinas Way. She gave a statement to the police on the 14th March. She recalled coming home on the 11th March 2010 from work at about 4 p.m. She said that sometime after 7 p.m. she was on her laptop in her bedroom
when she heard an explosion, which sounded like somebody banged an iron. With that, she went outside and she heard a woman crying "Marcos Marcos" and she heard her on the phone saying, "Come. A man has got shot at my door."

¶ [244] Ms. Russell said she saw another lady going up the stairs and she, the witness, went up the stairs along with the lady. She said she saw the deceased lying on the landing, lying on his stomach with his head turned to the side and she ran back down the stairs.
Summary of Defence Case

¶ [245] The Defence asks the question: What is the evidence in the trial that Raziel Jeffers organised the robbery and therefore participated in the robbery.

¶ [246] Although it would appear that calls from Raziel Jeffers to Jordan Manderson, and calls from Raziel Jeffers to Craig Johnson indicated that he was at the Northwest Point Road mast 901, the Defence says one cannot be precise as to whether a phone is in sector II or sector III or in the green area between sector II and sector III.

¶ [247] The Defence submits that there is no evidence of what exactly the participants in the joint enterprise did. The Defence submits that there is evidence against Raziel Jeffers that he was near the scene shortly after Mr. Duran was murdered and called Meagan Martinez at sometime after 8 p.m. and sounded nervous and out of breath, and she could hear the sirens of the emergency vehicles.

¶ [248] Meagan Martinez and Samantha Grant picked up Raziel Jeffers at Ebanks Road and drove him to another house around Dolphin Point.

¶ [249] Kevin Bolan sees only a silhouette or a shadow of a person running round the side of the building at #28 Maliwinas Way away from the scene of the murder.

¶ [250] In relation to Raziel Jeffers instructing Meagan Martinez to make a statement to the police to suggest that it was Logwood Boys who did the shooting: Meagan Martinez said she made a statement. The Defence says this is indicative of someone who is lying, because in her earlier witness statement
she said that the instruction was to contact Rita Martinez and ask her to make that allegation. Furthermore, no witness statement has surfaced. Accordingly, the Defence says that the conclusion is that Meagan Martinez lied on this particular issue.

¶ [251] In any event, the Defence submits that there is no evidence in any form that anyone asked the Defendant to tell anybody that the blame should be placed on the Logwood Boys.

¶ [252] The Defence asks the following questions: A. Where is the evidence that Raziel Jeffers organised the robbery? B. Who was he organising to do the robbery? C. Who supplied the guns? D. Who had a gun? E. Who fired the three shots that killed the deceased?

¶ [253] The Defence submits that there is a paucity of evidence and these questions would have to be answered before the Court could find Jordan Manderson guilty of murder as charged.

¶ [254] The Defence submits that the only evidence the Crown has are the scratches to Raziel Jeffers’s arms, which may be suspicious, but are not evidence of taking part in the robbery and the murder.

¶ [255] The Defence also asks what is the evidence in this trial of the active participation of another or others – in addition to the Defendant – in the
robbery, which the Crown say went badly wrong, and concluded with Marcos Duran being shot three times.

¶ [256] The Defence submits that the Crown must present its case on the basis that there were other active participants. The Defence submits that the Crown has not identified who the other participant or participants are.

¶ [257] The Defence highlights that there is evidence that there were two guns.

¶ [258] The only contact is Raziel Jeffers phoning Jordan Manderson and Raziel Jeffers phoning Craig Johnson. There is no contact between the Defendant and Craig Johnson.

¶ [259] The phone records confirm that the three phones attributed to the Defendant, Jeffers and Johnson are in the general area of North West Point Road, mast 901, West Bay but the Defence says that the Crown cannot be any more precise than that.

¶ [260] The Defence says that the 17-minute gap is not evidence that Raziel Jeffers or Craig Johnson were present at the scene.

¶ [261] Indeed, the Defence says that the evidence that Raziel Jeffers and Jordan Manderson were phoning each other at minutes to 7 p.m. would suggest that they are not together.

¶ [262] The Defence says that the Crown is unable to say what part the Defendant played in the plan, or whether he knew of the plan.

¶ [263] The Defence also says that the Crown is not able to define the nature of the joint enterprise, or able to particularize to any degree the roles of the various participants.

¶ [264] There is no evidence to support any suggestion that Craig Johnson was actively involved at the scene of the crime, apart from driving his car to Cinder Lane, and there is no evidence that Craig Johnson’s car was at the crime scene at Maliwinas Way.

¶ [265] The Defence submits that there is no evidence that Jordan Manderson knew of any plan to rob Marcos Duran, the deceased. There is no evidence that there was a joint enterprise involving the Defendant to murder Marcos Duran.

¶ [266] The Defence submits that even if there were evidence to show that there was a plan to rob Marcos Duran, there is no evidence that Jordan Manderson foresaw the possibility of Marcos Duran being murdered.

¶ [267] The Defence says that there is evidence that Andy Barnes threatened Jordan Manderson and his family and there is evidence that Andy Barnes had threatened the Defendant on a number of occasions and had threatened to kill him.

¶ [268] The Defence says that the wounding of Jordan Manderson could have happened in so many ways that it is impossible to say what happened.

¶ [269] The Defence says that all the persons who gave evidence to support that Damion Ming and Andy Barnes were not at the crime scene had good reason to give that evidence to protect their own.

¶ [270] The Defence highlights that there is no evidence from Andy Barnes.

¶ [271] The Defence highlights that there is no evidence from Perry or Christopher Bush that Andy Barnes’s two children were at their home on Glade Drive, despite the evidence of Natasha Thompson. Different Accounts of the Defendant and Lies

¶ [272] The Defendant says that one of them shot him on the stairs – he thinks it was Andy Barnes because he, Barnes, did not go up the stairs on to the balcony and that it was Ming who went to the balcony.

¶ [273] The Defendant also says Ming went upstairs and that he heard shooting from upstairs, and then the Defendant was shot – he thinks by Andy Barnes.

¶ [274] There is now a Direction I must give myself relating to the different accounts given by the Defendant and his lies.
Lucas Direction

¶ [275] The Defendant admittedly lied to the police when he said that he was shot by Andy Barnes on Birch Tree Hill Road near the Barnett Close intersection. He lied about the location and he lied about the fact that he was driven from there in a van with sliding doors to his home.

¶ [276] The Defendant later admitted that he was shot at Maliwinas Way and that Craig Johnson drove him from Birch Tree Hill Road to his house in Cinder Lane.

¶ [277] The Defendant’s explanation for telling the police that he was shot near the Barnett Close intersection of Birch Tree Hill Road was because he was concerned that he was out in breach of his curfew and wanted to be nearer his home and, secondly, because he knew that there had been a shooting or a murder at Maliwinas Way and he did not want to place himself at the scene.

¶ [278] The Defendant repeated these lies in his witness statement to the police and now has admitted to the Court during the trial that he lied. The Defendant repeated the lies during his question and answers to the police on the 9th April 2010, although towards the end of that interview he also said that Damion Ming was involved, in that, Ming also had a gun and was at Maliwinas Way.

¶ [279] It is now admitted that the Defendant lied to the police and, accordingly, I should ask myself two questions. First, I must decide whether the Defendant did in fact deliberately tell these lies. And then I must ask myself the question why did the Defendant lie?

¶ [280] I must warn myself that the mere fact that the Defendant told the police a lie is not in itself evidence that the Defendant is guilty of killing Marcos Duran. A Defendant in a criminal case may lie for many reasons and they may possibly be “innocent” ones, in the sense that they do not denote guilt, for example, they may be lies to bolster a true defence or to protect someone else, or to conceal some disgraceful conduct or out of panic, distress and confusion.

¶ [281] Accordingly, what I must not do is decide this case on the lies as lies, by themselves, cannot establish that it was the Defendant who murdered Marcos Mauricio Duran. However, the lies themselves can be evidence going to support the case for the prosecution, and therefore the over guilt of the Defendant.
The Defendant’s explanation for lies

¶ [282] Was the Defendant aware that the participants had guns?

¶ [283] Was the Defendant part of the robbery, but never ever thought someone would shoot Marcos Duran and was therefore too scared to give a full account?

¶ [284] Even if the Court finds that the Defendant was telling lies for no good reason, what evidence is there to prove he is guilty of murder, so that the Court is sure.

¶ [285] The Defence accepts that the Defendant’s DNA was at the scene and that he was present and around the murder scene between 7:20 and 7:24 p.m.

¶ [286] The Defence says it is difficult to know exactly how the Defendant was shot, but it could easily have happened in the way he described, as it was a very dynamic situation, with people moving and guns moving.

¶ [287] The Defendant has accepted that he told lies about where the shooting took place, but he submits that he has been consistent all along in saying that it was Andy Barnes who shot him. Immediately after the murder, in the presence of Aaron Hydes, he said it was Andy Barnes, and in his witness statement to the police he said it was Andy Barnes, and in Court he says it was Andy Barnes.
DNA Evidence

¶ [288] The Defence accepts that the Defendant’s blood was at the crime scene and submits that bullets could be dislodged from original locations with people going up and down the stairs.

¶ [289] The Defence accepts that the Defendant’s blood was on one bullet.

¶ [290] Regarding the mixed profile DNA of the Defendant and the deceased on the tam: A. The Defence says that on the evidence before the Court at least 7 people could have been on the stairs, and a maximum of 11 people on the stairs. This allows for possible secondary transfer and for possible contamination; B. There was no evidence that the deceased wore a tam; C. The Defence says there is no evidence that the Defendant wore a tam; D. The Defence says there is no evidence of who wore the tam; E. The Defence submits that on the evidence there is a possibility of secondary transfer and contamination in relation to the tam; F. In any event, the DNA on the tam does not mean that the Defendant is necessarily guilty of murdering Marcos Mauricio Duran;
G. The Defence accepts that it is the Defendant’s blood on the T-shirt, and in Craig Johnson’s car, and in the Honda Odyssey; H. The Defence says that the Defendant accepts that he used the T-shirt to stem the blood flow from his leg; I. As for the black fleece jacket: The Defence maintains that the Defendant’s answers to the police substantiate that he did not wear a jacket, but he may well have used the fleece to stem the blood. The Defence says it is perfectly consistent with him coming in contact with the fleece when he was in the vehicle and trying to stop the blood.

¶ [291] The Defence says it is quite possible the Defendant heard the news of the robbery and that he received the information of the $9,000 from third parties.

¶ [292] The Defence also submits that there is no evidence that Marcos Duran was robbed. To support this, the Defence says, in fact, the evidence is that Mr. Duran’s wallet was still in his pocket and that he had CI$225 and US$40.

¶ [293] The Defence points to a number of other possibilities: a. Marcos Duran was involved in selling numbers, which is an illegal activity. Consequently, he may well have had a gun in his possession for self protection and therefore he may have shot the Defendant. b. The Defence says the Crown has not said who pulled the trigger on the Defendant – did the Defendant shoot himself or did somebody else shoot him?
c. The Defence submits that it is a possibility that the Defendant may have been party to a joint enterprise to rob, but was totally unaware that the other participants would have guns, moreover that the guns would be used. d. The Defence submits that there is a paucity of evidence to convict the Defendant of murder. e. In conclusion the Defence says that although the Court may find that the Defendant lied, and lied on many occasions, the Crown cannot define or articulate the actual things said or done by this Defendant to prove that he was party to a joint enterprise to rob Mr. Duran, knowing or realizing that the likely outcome would be Mr. Duran’s death. The Law

¶ [294] 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.

¶ [295] 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."

¶ [296] 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 \( \mathbf{R} v. \mathbf{T}\mathbf{hompson} \) [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."

¶ [297] 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 \( \mathbf{R} v. \mathbf{T}\mathbf{hompson} \) [1977] NI 24 also adopted \( \mathbf{R} v. \mathbf{T}\mathbf{hain} \) [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."

¶ [298] Following Lowry LCJ in \( \mathbf{R} v. \mathbf{T}\mathbf{hompson} \) and \( \mathbf{R} v. \mathbf{T}\mathbf{hain} \), 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."
Direction on Circumstantial Evidence

¶ [299] Reference has been made to the type of evidence which I have received in this case. A Tribunal of Fact is often asked to find some fact proved by direct evidence, for example, if there is reliable evidence from a witness who actually saw the Defendant commit the crime; if there is a video recording of the incident which plainly demonstrates the Defendant’s guilt; or, if there is reliable evidence of the Defendant himself having admitted it. These would all be good examples of direct evidence against the Defendant Jordan Manderson.

¶ [300] On the other hand, it is often the case that direct evidence of a crime is not available and the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove guilt. This simply means that the Prosecution is relying upon evidence of various circumstances relating to the murder and the Defendant, which they say when taken together, will lead me to the sure conclusion that it was the Defendant who committed the crime.

¶ [301] As has often been stated, circumstantial evidence can be powerful evidence, but it is important that I examine it with care, and consider whether the evidence upon which the prosecution relies in proof of its case is reliable, and whether it does prove guilt.

¶ [302] Furthermore, before convicting on circumstantial evidence I should consider whether it reveals any other circumstances which are, or may be of sufficient reliability and strength to either destroy or even weaken the prosecution case.

¶ [303] Finally I must remind myself to be careful to distinguish between arriving at conclusions based on reliable circumstantial evidence, and mere speculation. Speculating in a case amounts to no more than guessing, or making up theories without good evidence to support them, and that is something that I as a Tribunal of Fact should never do.
Conclusion Direction on Joint Enterprise

¶ [304] The Crown’s case is that Raziel Jeffers organised the robbery of Marcos Duran and solicited the assistance of the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, Craig Johnson, and possibly one or two others to join as active participants in the robbery.

¶ [305] Section 19 of the Penal Code reads: "When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such person, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence."

¶ [306] The case for the prosecution is that the Defendant, Raziel Jeffers and others not before the Court planned to rob the deceased, Marcos Duran, as part of a joint plan or agreement.

¶ [307] The essence of this joint responsibility for a criminal offence is that each Defendant shared the intention to commit the offence and took some part in it.

¶ [308] Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to prove guilt. The Tribunal of Fact has to find that the Defendant was at the scene of the crime and also intended to, and did, take part in the criminal joint enterprise.

¶ [309] I have to remind myself that where one party to the joint enterprise acted in a manner which exceeded the common purpose, the issue for me is whether his
act was nevertheless within the scope of the joint enterprise and therefore was either authorised by the Defendant, or that the act was foreseen by the Defendant as a real possibility when he embarked on the joint enterprise.

¶ [310] 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 to decide on the relevant facts of this case.

¶ [311] Accordingly, I have reviewed the evidence as I see it, that is, the evidence from the witness box, with 40 witnesses from the Crown and three (3) for the Defence, together with the 61 Exhibits and the various admissions.

¶ [312] I have also taken into account the arguments and submissions in the speeches of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms. Cheryll Richards, and Defence counsel, Mr. David Fisher Q.C.

¶ [313] I remind myself that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to prove that the Defendant, Jordan Manderson, is guilty, and further, it is never for the Defendant to have to prove his innocence.

¶ [314] I also 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, so that on the evidence before me, I am sure that he is guilty.

¶ [315] If I find that the prosecution has not made out its case to that standard, I must find the Defendant not guilty. If on the evidence I am sure, then I must find
the Defendant guilty. Accordingly, I must carefully review the evidence put before the Court and decide whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty.

¶ [316] In this case there is no identification of who shot the deceased. There are no eye witnesses. There is no fingerprint evidence and no guns have been recovered.

¶ [317] I can find no evidence that the Defendant ever had a .22, .38 or .44 calibre weapon, either before or at the time of the murder of Marcos Duran, and, there is no evidence linking the Defendant to any of the two guns that shot the Defendant.

¶ [318] The evidence of a man running around the back of the building around the time of the shooting must be seen against the fact that the Defendant’s leg was already broken.

¶ [319] On the discovery of the mixed profile DNA evidence on the tam – with the Defendant’s DNA and the deceased’s DNA – I find that there is no evidence that either the deceased or the Defendant were wearing a tam, and there is no evidence that anyone else was wearing a tam.

¶ [320] Additionally, it is accepted that the Defendant was shot at the scene, although it was not clear who his assailant or assailants were.

¶ [321] However, there is evidence of at least seven or, at the most, 11 people going to the stairs, and that included the paramedics who removed the body of the deceased. I cannot rule out a possible secondary transfer, and, in any event, the DNA does not conclusively prove that the Defendant either had a gun, or
indeed, shot the deceased or even took an active part in the murder of the deceased.

¶ [322] On the phone call evidence: Although there are some calls between Raziel Jeffers and the Defendant, and between Raziel Jeffers and Craig Johnson, these calls do not reveal any joint enterprise or plan to rob the deceased.

¶ [323] The fact that their phones were linked to the same mast, and either sector 2 or sector 3, or the area in between, does not put all three at #28 Maliwinas Way at 7:20 p.m. on the 11th March 2010, nor does the 17-minute period of inactivity on their respective phones prove that they were taking part in a planned joint enterprise to rob the deceased.

¶ [324] I do find that the Defendant lied, and lied to his parents and he lied to the police. It is very disturbing to find that he lied, and it’s even more disturbing to think that he lied because he was frightened.

¶ [325] The Defendant has given so many different accounts of what took place that it is hard to know what to believe. However, even if I do not believe any of his accounts, his lies do not prove that he is guilty of murder.

¶ [326] The Crown says that this was a planned robbery – a joint enterprise. The Crown says it was planned by Raziel Jeffers, and the Defendant was part of the team that planned it and actively participated in it.

¶ [327] There is no evidence that there was any plan or joint enterprise to murder the deceased. The Crown says it was a robbery that went wrong and the deceased was shot three times by two or more persons using at least two guns.

¶ [328] Accordingly I make the following findings: a. There is no evidence as to who participated in the robbery. b. There is no evidence that the deceased was robbed, in fact, there is evidence that his wallet was found in his pocket with a substantial amount of CI and US currency. c. There is no evidence of who organised the robbery and no particulars of what each participant did. d. I ask myself this question: Can I be sure that the Defendant knew of the planned robbery and took an active part before and at the time of the killing? e. Even if I do find that he knew of the robbery and took part in it, can I be sure that he knew that guns were part of the planned robbery? f. Even if the evidence proved that he knew about the planned robbery and the use of two or more guns, can I be sure that the Defendant was aware that there was a real likelihood, or even a possibility, that one of the other participants would kill the deceased? g. Can I be sure that on the evidence before me that either Jordan Manderson killed the deceased, or that one of the alleged participants killed him?
h. There is no evidence before me that he knew of the guns or that he used a gun or that he authorized another to use a gun or that he foresaw that there was a real possibility that the gun would be used to kill or cause the deceased grievous bodily harm.

¶ [329] I find that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that the Defendant is guilty of the murder of Marcos Mauricio Duran.

¶ [330] Accordingly, I must find the Defendant not guilty of the murder of Marcos Mauricio Duran. Judge's Note following Judgment

¶ [331] Before I release you, Mr. Manderson, I must say: You lied to the police. You lied to your parents. You have given so many accounts it is hard to know which to believe. Not only did you not assist the police about where you were shot, you told them you were shot at a different location to send the police off on a wild goose chase. Your lies meant there was a great waste of valuable police time and effort as they carried out their investigation regarding how and where you were shot. You are 18 years of age. You want to think seriously about your future and what you want to do with your life, Mr. Manderson.

¶ [332] I want to say something about the guns: The guns at the murder scene have not been recovered. Someone must know where these are or what happened to them. It is time for people to stop withholding vital information and to give unconditional and unqualified support to the RCIPS.

¶ [333] If we are to stop these violent crimes we must all help and support the RCIPS and respect law and order. It is the only way we can make the Cayman Islands safe and peaceful again, which must be everyone's greatest wish. Dated this the 21st day of June 2011 Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Quin Judge of the Grand Court