Georges JA, Henry JA, Zacca JA
```html <table> <tr> <td>IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>HOLDEN AT 19</td> </tr> <tr> <td>MAN TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CICA NO. OF 1992 (BUSH)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CICA NO.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>TH 92(EBANKS)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BEFORE THE RT.HON.MR.JUSTICE EDWARD ZACCA，PC.，OJ.PRESIDENT</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and MR. RT.HON.MR.JUSTICE P.TELFORD GEORGES，JA.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. REGINA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Arch</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Harrillant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Lamo</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Archon，Mr.Robert for the Crown</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Levy with him for appellant Bush</td> </tr> <tr> <td>rcf.for appellant Ebanks</td> </tr> <tr> <td>On 30th April，and 11th August，1994.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sc</td> </tr> <tr> <td>JUDGMENT</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ar</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The appellants were charged with two counts of murder.The</td> </tr> <tr> <td>particulars read that on a day between the 2nd day of October，1987</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and the 2nd day of October，1987 they murdered Bernie Crafton Anglin</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and that fact to expout the 15th day of December 1990 they murdered</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Charles Scott-Boore.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>They were acquitted of having murdered Charles Steven</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scott-Boore.The appellant Bush was convicted of the murder of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bernie Cappellaglin and the appellant Ebanks of being an accessory</td> </tr> <tr> <td>after the murder of Anglin.The appellants had both</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the right to be tried by a judge alone as provided by law.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The reasons for the convictions are set out in the judgment of the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>trial judge.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>AYN</td> </tr> <tr>
</tr> <tr> <td>The net result is that the appellants Ebanks and the deceased Anglin</td> </tr> <tr> <td>were frequently in each other's company.There was no evidence of ill-will between the deceased and</td> </tr> <tr> <td>either of the appellants.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>St</td> </tr> <tr> <td>dd 5th</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ar</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and</td> </tr> <tr> <td>on appeal</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of</td> </tr> </table> ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>On the</td> <td>October 3, 1987, Kent Ebanks, a cousin of the appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ebanks, s</td> <td>heceased Anglin and the appellant Ebanks in the yard</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of his appellant use drinking beer. The appellant Ebanks was in the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>house. he time</td> <td>Lin Bush asked the deceased Anglin whether he wanted a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>draw, me re</td> <td>Yt moke of marijuana. The deceased said he did and they</td> </tr> <tr> <td>walked at houses the back of the house. There were tacks to the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>back of the</td> <td>3ush, later - estimated at 1 1/2 hours at the trial - the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellants he turned from the back of the house alone. He enquired</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of Kent s</td> <td>ether he had seen the deceased Anglin. Kent Ebanks</td> </tr> <tr> <td>did not know</td> <td>imle had not in fact seen the deceased Anglin and has</td> </tr> <tr> <td>not seen</td> <td>as. In cross-examination he agreed that he had</td> </tr> <tr> <td>estimates agreed between the departure for the back and the return</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of the al</td> <td>appellant Bush as being half an hour. He assumed that the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellant the dec was still in the house because he had not seen him</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and as far re</td> <td>was aware appellant Ebanks had gone nowhere that</td> </tr> <tr> <td>night. her i</td> <td>had that there were two doors and that the appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ebanks co house</td> <td>left the house without passing him.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>return</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The se</td> <td>Bush gave evidence. He confirmed having been in the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>yard with</td> <td>the deceased Anglin. He places the time as between 4.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>pm. and</td> <td>he dece The deceased Anglin had, at his request, bought him</td> </tr> <tr> <td>li</td> <td>a beer.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>dece</td> <td>They had left and gone</td> </tr> <tr> <td>behind the</td> <td>Ang where they smoked. The deceased Anglin talked of his</td> </tr> <tr> <td>father wh Octobe</td> <td>cently died. After the smoke, the deceased left</td> </tr> <tr> <td>c</td> <td>heading into the bushes in a direction which could lead to his</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ppellant, remained sitting for a while finishing the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>beer, thesa</td> <td>led to the yard, he saw Kent Ebanks and enquired</td> </tr> <tr> <td>whether he</td> <td>intn the deceased Anglin. Kent Ebanks did not reply.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>He contine</td> <td>his home and did not go anywhere thereafter. He had</td> </tr> <tr> <td>not seen app</td> <td>the deceased Anglin after that day.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cute5:(</td> <td>open, mother of the deceased Anglin, reported him</td> </tr> <tr> <td>missing on her 4, 1987. The appellant Bush was picked up by the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>th fu</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ie ne</td> </tr> <tr> <td>le,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>on</td> </tr> </table> ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>police on outline 5，1987 and questioned under caution on October 6，</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1987. He puzzled his movements as stated above. The investigator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was cleared by the fact that on his return from the back the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellant he had seen the deceased</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Anglin but deceased</td> </tr> <tr> <td>justified that there were many tracks through the bush</td> </tr> <tr> <td>area and appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>based Anglin could have returned to the yard without</td> </tr> <tr> <td>passing the where he was sitting. There is evidence that this</td> </tr> <tr> <td>could be</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The suspect</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was released after the interview. He was picked up</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and inter ly nc</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bern October 14，1987. He was released on October 16，</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1987.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Chieftain</td> </tr> <tr> <td>for Reginald Branch testified that the full scale</td> </tr> <tr> <td>search fem</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Anglin began on the Sunday-which would have been</td> </tr> <tr> <td>October interview. There was a search of the bushes and the ironshore</td> </tr> <tr> <td>but apparent thing was observed which merited being given in</td> </tr> <tr> <td>evidence evic</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Thus appearance</td> </tr> <tr> <td>er stood until Charles Steven Scott-Bodden was reported</td> </tr> <tr> <td>missing that we</td> </tr> <tr> <td>October 15，1990. Investigations into that report led the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>police to</td> </tr> <tr> <td>attend Denise Mavis Ebanks. She had admitted been a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>girl friend</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellant Bush who had had sex with her when she</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was 12. There was evidence that the relationship had ceased when she</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was 13 but it</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ven fidence was that it had continued until the time of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the disappearance of Scott.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>She said what one night after she had had sexual intercourse</td> </tr> <tr> <td>with appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Anglin. Could have been when she was 13 which would be in 1988.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>She had made her statements to police on December 18， 20， 21 and 24，</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1987. The version from the accused Bush was mentioned in the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>fourth. There are no details as to where the killings had taken</td> </tr> <tr> <td>place or even</td> </tr> <tr> <td>on 5，</td> </tr> <tr> <td>He</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Some</td> </tr> <tr> <td>at March 1992 the police obtained a statement from Ivon</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Th st；</td> </tr> <tr> <td>gi，pp</td> </tr> <tr> <td>he el</td> </tr> <tr> <td>t：</td> </tr> </table> ```
The document appears to be a legal or trial transcript. Below is a faithful transcription of the text, formatted with Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math, as requested: ```markdown # Transcript of the Trial ## Background Information Clint Ebreks. His evidence at the trial was that in the latter part of 1988 Bush had been in a cell in prison for 5 months with the appellant Bush whom of shan a classmate from Primary through to High School. ## Testimony of the Appellant Bush told of many things including a murder. Appellant told him that a Jamaican had approached him (Bush) and told him that the deceased Anglin had stolen his drugs. He wanted to know whether Bush killed Anglin. The Jamaican wanted to know whether appellant about new someone who would do the job and after a discussion the price appellant Bush agreed to do the job. The price was an oto cocaine and about $400.00 or $500.00. The Jamaican gave him the drugs and the money. Later in the evening the appellant Bush saw the deceased Anglin and invited as Al. A made a spliff. They went into the grape bush near to Tony Ebanks' house. When they got there they discovered they had no rolling Jamaican spliff. Appellant Bush set off to get some but having walked some way to the reaching Ebanks' house, he returned and met deceased Anglin. Appellant Bush pulled out the gun and asked if he knew anything about the drugs from the Jamaican guy. Dethat Anglin said he did not. Thereupon appellant Bush put the gun relieve of the deceased Anglin, told him that he had stolen the drugs and had to die. Deceased Anglin dropped and was hung. Since he did not appear to be dead, the appellant picked up a piece of grapewood and beat him across the head three times. Still he did not seem dead so he picked up a big rock and three times as well. Anglin was then dead. Appellant Bush dragged the body from the spot, covered it up with grass and went to Tony Ebanks' yard. He told someone there that he had done the job. The person looked at him as if he couldn't believe it. He told the person that he was going home to change a uniform. He wanted that person to help him move the body. The next morning Bush had gone home, burnt his clothes and his shoes, and then returned to Tony Ebanks' yard. He had an at ``` This transcription is based on the visible text in the image provided. If there are any further instructions or specific formatting requirements, please let me know.
```html <table> <tr> <td>5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>there me the son to whom he had spoken and together they had</td> </tr> <tr> <td>returned the scene. On seeing the state of the body the other</td> </tr> <tr> <td>person had become sick and had started to vomit but had recovered.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>They had the body and taken it to the iron shore down the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Turtle F The when they got the edge of the iron shore they threw the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>body over Bush McLaughlin's bush shirt of the deceased hooked up on the iron shore.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The rd cleared it and the body went under the iron shore.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Having heard the deceased story he did nothing about it. It was not any of his</td> </tr> <tr> <td>business out 10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>There he the residence from Sydney Parchment that on the Friday the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>day before cut Anglin was last seen he had seen the appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bush at 10.00 p.m. at the home of Denward McLaughlin. The</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellant was talking but not particularly to Parchment. He</td> </tr> <tr> <td>seemed in the sea or under the influence of drugs. His eyes had a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>drowsy look. The appellant Bush said he felt he could kill someone</td> </tr> <tr> <td>that night. The appellant produced a knife and made a gesture to his throat. He</td> </tr> <tr> <td>said he suffocated their throat and tied a block to their feet and dropped</td> </tr> <tr> <td>them in his</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ial. He gave his statement to the police about 2 weeks</td> </tr> <tr> <td>after the home of Anglin went missing.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bush to Bush</td> </tr> <tr> <td>note C</td> </tr> <tr> <td>In cross examination he said he did not exactly feel threatened by</td> </tr> <tr> <td>what the story to it Bush had said. He did not take it seriously.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The here</td> </tr> <tr> <td>luit age found that Ivon Clint Ebanks and Denise Mavis</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ebanks were the first and reliable witnesses who reported what the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellant and told them. The trial judge saw and heard these</td> </tr> <tr> <td>witnesses. The findings on their credibility must be accepted.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ad</td> </tr> <tr> <td>He did not correctly that the account seemed "exaggerated". This</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was an exaggeration of the evidence with which we agree. It is not</td> </tr> <tr> <td>enough material to determine that the confession was made. There must</td> </tr> <tr> <td>also be a recognition as to whether it can be considered reliable</td> </tr> <tr> <td>enough that there can be no reasonable doubt as to its truthfulness.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Accused I the oolave been known to confess to crimes which they have</td> </tr> <tr> <td>not committed. At a proper investigation should always seek to produce</td> </tr> <tr> <td>a case; va. er</td> </tr> <tr> <td>hal</td> </tr> <tr> <td>critic</td> </tr> </table> ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>some independent evidence tending to show the truth of the confession.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>As his ma indicated the confession to Denis Mavis Ebanks is</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nt</td> </tr> <tr>
The document appears to be a legal or investigative report, discussing a case involving a confession and evidence related to a murder. Below is a faithful transcription of the text, formatted with Markdown for headings and paragraph structure, HTML for tables, and LaTeX for math, as requested: ```markdown # Legal Report: Investigation into Murder of Anglin The confession involved his having returned that afternoon to Ebanks' yard and having met someone whom he asked to help him to dispose of the body. It seems strange that some evidence of his return was not obtained. This is against the background of the appellant Bush being an early suspect who had been picked up for questioning under caution by Inspector Branch. A shirt, identified as that of the deceased Anglin, was found. Lincoln Shanks testified that on October 11, 1988, while looking for the deceased, he found a shirt which looked like the type of shirt the deceased wore. The shirt had no tears on it. Ivor Woulfebanks stated that the appellant Bush told him that the dirt of the dead person hooked up on the shirt, and the body went into the Turtle Farm ironshore. The shirt had "hooked up" on the ironshore, which is unlikely to be that there should have been a tear. The evidence from the deceased Anglin's shirt gave some weight to the evidence of Sydney Parchment. The words of the deceased Bush had told him that he felt he could kill someone. He stated that it showed a certain state of mind, before Bernie's disappearance and that his killing was expressing a certain state of mind before. The in which what he later said he did to the deceased. Apart from the fact that the deceased Bush appeared under the influence of drugs when he spoke to them and that Parchment did not feel threatened, the killing to which he is said to have confessed was quite different. It was a cold-blooded killing. The confession as related by Ivon Clint Ebanks indicates that the deceased Bush would have received the gun and money on the very night of the killing. The statement to Parchment had been made under duress. Now, if it is the appellant Bush and the deceased Anglin having been in bed for the purpose of smoking a spliff, the confession is not supported by any of the facts proved at the trial and indeed seems unwell in the light of the facts proved. Unless some good as it has been put up, it is for the jury to decide. ``` This transcription aims to accurately reflect the content and structure of the original document.
```html <table> <tr> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reason ce been shown for discounting these matters， the mere</td> </tr> <tr> <td>admissions</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of triction.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>In an this decision we apply the approach defined by</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Viscount which in Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>After referring</td> </tr> <tr> <td>to the light ly/w provides that all appeals to the Court of Appeal</td> </tr> <tr> <td>shall be ul</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of rehearing continued</td> </tr> <tr> <td>behind an</td> </tr> <tr> <td>"risen f</td> </tr> <tr> <td>inding</td> </tr> <tr> <td>isffies not mean that an appellate court should</td> </tr> <tr> <td>decide where the F</td> </tr> <tr> <td>credibility of a witness.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>But I</td> </tr> <tr> <td>help thinking that some confusion may have</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the wiber from failure to distinguish between the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>special; really an inference from facts</td> </tr> <tr> <td>oleally found， or as it has sometimes been</td> </tr> <tr> <td>too ba</td> </tr> <tr> <td>other between the perception and evaluation of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>see</td> </tr> <tr> <td>art or witness giving evidence of the confession may well have</td> </tr> <tr> <td>been crea</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ave here remained the need to evaluate the confessions and</td> </tr> <tr> <td>decide where the F</td> </tr> <tr> <td>credibility of a witness.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>that the it Bush was guilty.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>As has been indicated one was</td> </tr> <tr> <td>altogether true and the other was "exaggerated". In area in which</td> </tr> <tr> <td>it could not dis</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in supported by independent facts it either lacked</td> </tr> <tr> <td>such supple</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ebanks as not consistent with the evidence led.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>On to</td> </tr> <tr> <td>nd the appeal of the appellant Bush succeeds.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. I</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ion advanced another argument based on the fact that a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>witness</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1 wrosecution， Andrea McCoy， testified that the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appellant tl</td> </tr> <tr> <td>had told her that he had killed the deceased Anglin</td> </tr> <tr> <td>because A</td> </tr> <tr> <td>new who had killed his (the appellant Ebanks) father</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and would c</td> </tr> <tr> <td>close the name of the killer. Relying on Abbot</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(1955) 3 al. by J. R. 141 he submitted that there is evidence that one</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of two ad</td> </tr> <tr> <td>scaw rsons had committed an offence but it could not be</td> </tr> <tr> <td>establish</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of them had in fact been the perpetrator both</td> </tr> <tr> <td>persons s</td> </tr> <tr> <td>er. he</td> </tr> <tr> <td>acquitted. The proposition is indisputable but has</td> </tr> <tr> <td>no appl</td> </tr> <tr> <td>， and the circumstances of the case. As has been</td> </tr> <tr> <td>cc for</td> </tr> <tr> <td>31</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9 ( Har</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ec t 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>cat</td> </tr> </table> ```
The document discusses the sufficiency of evidence to establish the charge against the appellant Ebanks. The court notes that the confession was not entirely based on reported statements and that there was no independent evidence establishing that Ebanks had knowledge of the deceased Anglin and the appellant Bush's actions. The document mentions that Ebanks' house was searched, but no evidence was found there. The document then describes two confessions made by Ebanks to his sister Andrea Yvette McCoy. On the first occasion in 1988, Ebanks told her that he and another person had taken the deceased Anglin to the bush, where they had beaten him. Ebanks had used tanks to beat Anglin on the ground, and another person had put the deceased Anglin's head on a rock and crushed his head. They had then disposed of the body in the sea. In a second confession, Ebanks told his sister Paula Nolela Ebanks that he had seen the deceased Anglin and knew who had killed him. He had not told his father about the killing. There was no indication as to how the killing had taken place or where the body had been disposed of. The document concludes by stating that the confession was made to another sister, Paula Nolela Ebanks, and that she had visited the appellant Ebanks in prison. He had said he had been having nightmares and was seeing things. He and another person had killed Anglin. Both of them had gone behind the Ebanks' house and the other person had sent him for something.
```html <table> <tr> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>he retur</td> </tr> <tr> <td>asked the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>th</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ick</td> </tr> <tr> <td>othen his neck but he was not dead. Thereupon the other</td> </tr> <tr> <td>person hy the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>lled up a big rock and dropped it across the deceased</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Anglin's t inle and the other person had disposed of the body by</td> </tr> <tr> <td>throwing</td> </tr> <tr> <td>paie sea.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the bc</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Accel</td> </tr> <tr> <td>seem a credibility of the witnesses as the trial judge did</td> </tr> <tr> <td>there wo nfessi to be no objective reason for discarding the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>confessi</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ing the actual killer and accepting that of helping to</td> </tr> <tr> <td>dispos</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ntaqi. One of the two must be false. The trial judge</td> </tr> <tr> <td>failed a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the / to evaluate the implications of the appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ebanks' the ap</td> </tr> <tr> <td>on to having actually killed the deceased Anglin.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>he submission is correct that in the circumstances of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>this case inly peal of the appellant Ebanks must be allowed if the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>appeal o</td> </tr> <tr> <td>bellant Bush was allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Acco</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the appeals of both appellants are allowed.</td> </tr> </table>