Dexter Todd: No Compelling Evidence Against Danny Mason

Dexter Todd

You have heard about the D.P.P.’s closing arguments on how Pastor Lucas was killed as a joint enterprise between Mason and the other accused men.  Late on Wednesday, Mason’s attorney, Dexter Todd, said that there is no compelling evidence against his client and that the crown has presented purely circumstantial evidence. 

Dexter Todd, Attorney for William Mason

“The evidence as it was presented in this case I believe fell short of a number of things and I have close my arguments at looking holistically at the evidence. How the judge treats the evidence is totally and completely up to the judge in relation to it. I am of the view that the investigation was not thorough. It lacked the type of completeness to bring conclusively what really transpired. This is a case entirely on circumstantial evidence and I think in dealing with circumstantial evidence they ought to have been more coming from the investigation itself which would have lend to a clearer picture of what actually transpired. So basically that was what I presented to the court and I pointed out to the court what were some of the shortcomings and let’s see if the court will agree in relation to that. As I said it’s totally up to the court at the end of the day.”

Reporter

“What would you say to those who believe that maybe you downplayed the evidence against your client? What would you say to that?”

Dexter Todd

“Well I didn’t really downplay the evidence against my client. I have submitted that there is no evidence against my client and the court is to either agree or disagree as to whether there is evidence or not. I believe it was not a disputed fact that the deceased was at the home of my client and I have agreed on that, I’ve never disagree with that, my client never disagree with that. As opposed to whether there were any plan or plot or intention to kill the deceased is where I am waiting for the evidence and those are the issues that I brought before the court and the court is going to review that evidence and see whether they agree or disagree.”