Justice Antoinette Moore Reserves Judgment in Mason et al Murder Trial
Supreme Court Justice Antoinette Moore has reserved judgment in the murder trial of the century that paralyzed the nation with gruesome details, scandalous accusations and serious allegations against ministers. William Danny Mason, a Guyanese national whose goes by the name Rajesh Ouelette stands accused of kidnapping and decapitating Pastor Llewelyn Lucas three years ago in July 2016. Four other men believed to be Mason’s henchmen and accomplices also stood trial and they are Ernest Castillo, Keiron Fernandez, Ashton Vanegas, and Terrence Fernandez. The trial has been going on for weeks at the Belmopan Supreme Court with the Prosecution submitting that he accused men acted in a joint enterprise when they cold bloodedly decapitated the pastor. D.P.P. Cheryl Lynn Vidal says there was enough communication, including text messages, between Pastor Lue and William Mason to show a reason for the pastor’s murder. The Guyanese attorney for Mason, Dexter Todd, argued that the evidence against Mason is circumstantial and that his client was being framed for murder. Closing arguments wrapped up today; Keiron Fernandez was represented by attorney Bryan Neal, who touched on several points. Neal pointed to the court that his client as a matter of fact and law is entitled to be acquitted of the charge of murder because the crown has failed to provide the court with evidence that his client appears in the surveillance footage obtained from Mason’s house. Neal told the court that the prosecution has failed to present a witness that has positively identified his client in the video. As for the accusation of joint enterprise, the crown has failed to prove it, says Neal. In respect to the DNA evidence, Neal pointed out that the evidence was not obtained from a crime scene and is therefore unreliable and that the investigation conducted by the police was poor. Neal strongly believes that the various strands of circumstantial evidence cannot be woven together to provide the prosecution a strong enough case that would require a guilty verdict.
Bryan Neal
Bryan Neal, Attorney for Keiron Fernandez
“I was able to focus on the identification evidence in the video which was very grainy and did not make out any face of any of the accused men. I pointed out particularly the third accused and who they are saying is the third accused and who I represent was not identified by any of the other witnesses that attended in this trial. So there is no proper identification evidence. I also submitted about the DNA the way it was collected and the fact that it was not collected from a crime scene that it cannot count as evidence against my client. I focused on the faulty investigation that went nowhere as far as I am concerned. A couple other legal points that I hope the judge will consider and enter a verdict of not guilty for the third accused man, Keiron Fernandez.”
Reporter
“I believe it was your position and that of a couple of your colleagues that the circumstantial evidence brought by the Crown was not woven together sufficiently to prove that your clients or even those of your colleague’s committed this question.”
Bryan Neal
Very good question. Let me break it down for you so even a baby could understand. Think about it like a rope. You have one piece of evidence, identification. You have another piece, DNA. You have another piece, investigation. You must tie all those strands together like a rope and if the rope is tight then you have proven your case. We are saying that the rope cannot be woven together therefore there is no circumstantial evidence and the case fails.”
Reporter
“Now for you guys the attorneys representing these men in this very extended trial it must be a relief that closing arguments are over and the judge has reserved her decision?”
Bryan Neal
“I will be relieved if my client is acquitted. The case is not over. You heard the judge reserve judgment for before the end of the year. The relief will come for me if my client is acquitted.”
