Prosecution, defence wrap up arguments

The prosecution in the trial of the men accused of murdering two United States missionaries in St Mary yesterday urged the jury to find Andre Thomas was not just an innocent bystander who had begged for their lives to be spared.

Thomas, a 22-year-old labourer, is currently on trial in the Home Circuit Court for the murders of Randy Hentzel, 48, and Harold Nichols, 53, who were found dead in Wentworth district in St Mary between April 30 and May 1, 2016.

Hentzel was found first, lying face down with his hands tied behind his back using a piece of his shirt and a gunshot wound to the head. Nichols was found with a gunshot wound to his chest and six chop wounds to his head.

Thomas’ cousin Dwight Henry, who was jointly charged with their murders, pleaded guilty in January, claiming he murdered Hentzel while Thomas murdered the Nichols.

Henry, who had initially told the police that he killed both men and that he hated “white nation” because of what his grandfather had told him about how they enslaved black people, is currently serving a life sentence with a stipulation that he serve 28 years in prison before parole.

Thomas however, despite giving the police various versions of the incident, including one in which he said he had helped to tie up one victim’s hands, in his unsworn statement claimed the only thing he did was beg for the men’s lives. He denied telling the police that he had tied Hentzel’s hands or had directed them to the murder scene.

Equally responsible

But the lead prosecutor, during her closing address to the jury yesterday, reminded them to bear in mind the Crown’s case that both Thomas and Henry are equally responsible for the brutal deaths of the missionaries, regardless of the role they each played.

“The Crown is relying on the doctrine of common design, so we are saying that whatever the role played by Mr Thomas or whatever was the role played by Mr Henry, both of them are jointly reliable for the death of these men as they acted together and both of them shared the same intention to bring about the death of these men.”

She added: “So, it doesn’t matter who lick dis one or who lick dat one or who chop dat one or who shoot that one, the Crown is saying they acted together.”

Pointing to Henry’s evidence that Nichols had run and both of them had chased him before he was chopped and shot by Thomas, the prosecutor said the man tried to save his life but was unsuccessful because of the decisions of both Thomas and Henry.

She further urged the jury to reject Thomas’ claim that he had begged Henry repeatedly to spare the men’s lives and that Henry was the only one who had chased Nichols.

“A the end of the day, he is telling you that for half an hour he stayed there waiting while Henry left and came back and tell him how him foot tired and man sweat him,” she said.

The jury was implored to treat that version with the contempt that it deserves as what Thomas said in his recorded caution statement and his unsworn statement did accord with “common sense”.

“He would like you to believe that he was perched in the bushes on the petal or limb of one of those trees like a petchary or butterfly doing what for thirty minutes?

“What was he doing there, did you hear anything that would have prevented Mr Thomas, were he speaking the truth, to tek wey himself as Jamaicans would say?” she asked.

The prosecutor also told the jury to remember that Henry had not shied away from his role and had reiterated that he was the one who had tied up Hentzel and shot him in the head. She also submitted that the ballistic evidence had supported Henry’s version in that it confirmed that an Intra tech firearm was used and that two shots were fired.

Meanwhile, Thomas’ lawyer Leroy Equiano, in his address, cautioned the jury not to use biases that are influenced by political, religious and social pressure or sympathy in arriving at a verdict.

Encompassed in these biases, he said, were the fact that the victims were ministers of religion who were seen as good men, white Americans, and the supposed pressure on the police to find their killers as well as the sympathy for their deaths.

“All of these factors will lead to emotional decisions and unconscious biases, so be careful,” he said.

Used as a scapegoat

The lawyer, further in his closing address, said his client was being used as a scapegoat and also that Henry was trying to pin the crime on him wrongfully in exchange for his reduced sentence.

He told the jury that the plea deal was behind Henry’s motivation for changing his statement, in which he had told police that he was responsible for the two murders, to his new stance where he claimed Thomas also killed one of the men.

Equiano also told the jury to take into account that his client was not afforded legal protection, which has led to a lack of credibility.

Pointing to the different versions of the murder account given by his client in each statement, he said this was largely based on the fact that he was not provided with duty counsel and gave the police information that he felt would assist his case.

Equiano, before closing, urged the jury not to be tricked by Henry’s newfound conscience but to examine the evidence and find that Thomas is not guilty as Henry had confessed to killing the men in a police statement and in his question-and-answer responses and had also declared that he did it because of his hatred for white people

The trial will resume today with the judge’s summation.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com