Lawyer labels Campbell-Collymore shooter ‘a liar’

The attorney-at-law who is representing the alleged contract killer in the murder of businesswoman Simone Campbell Collymore yesterday sought to discredit the evidence of one of the shooters, branding him a liar.

Attorney-at-law Sanjay Smith, who is representing Michael ‘Crayboss’ Adams, during his closing address yesterday in the Home Circuit Court told the jury to reject the evidence of the prosecution key’s witness, confessed shooter Wade Blackwood, arguing that he had fabricated the evidence so that he could benefit from a reduced sentence.

“Mr Blackwood is a liar and self-confessed murderer,” he told the seven-member jury.

Using biblical references, Smith also labelled Blackwood a “false witness” and an “abomination” who told “bold lies”.

Blackwood, who was initially sentenced to two life sentences in 2021 and ordered to serve 35 years before parole, had 15 years shaved off his pre-parole prison term this year after he entered into a deal with the Crown.

He was one of two men who were captured on video shooting into the front window of a motor vehicle with the 32-year-old businesswoman and taxi driver, Winston Walters, 36, on January 2, 2018, outside the couple’s apartment in Red Hills, St Andrew.

The other shooter, Jim, reputed leader of the Unruly Gang, of which Blackwood and the other defendants were alleged to have been a part, is now deceased.

Collymore and Adams, along with Dwayne Pink and Shaquilla Edwards, are being tried on two counts of murder and conspiracy to murder.

Smith told the court yesterday that Blackwood’s testimony was not recorded in court in his statement thus demonstrating that he “was making up the evidence as he goes along”.

He said people tell lies for different reasons and it was evident that Blackwood was lying to get a benefit which would see him serving a shorter prison time.

According to him, his client never spoke to Blackwood and did not know him. He told the jury to ponder the possibility of Blackwood knowing his client for over a decade but not having Adams’ phone number, or knowing his name or address.

He also indicated that there was no data of communication between the two.

Phone data

Turning to the phone data, he said the information showed that, on the day when Blackwood said he had a meeting with his client in Brooke Valley in Kingston, his client was in Harbour View, which is miles apart.

He stressed that it would not be possible for his client to be in two places at once, unless he had cloned of himself.

Smith also argued that there was no evidence of the recording of the men discussing the plot.

Addressing the Crown’s evidence that Adams gave the police a hoverboard, which Collymore gifted him as part payment for the contract, Smith said it was “rubbish”, as that could not be used as part payment, given the cost.

Meanwhile, Edwards’ lawyer Gnoj McDonald urged the jury to find that her client had in fact withdrawn from the plot by taking himself away from the men on January 1 and 2 when the murder was to be executed.

McDonald said her client chose to provide the police with information during his question and answer, and told them the truth, including that he had lied to get out of the plot and that he further pulled out.

She said her client, who is not aware of the law, did what he thought was the best to separate himself from the conspiracy, and asked that the jury find that his action was enough.

McDonald said her client did not hide the fact that he knew the men and that he was working with people who were not afraid of killing family members and, given the circumstances, the only thing her client could do was to keep himself in his community on the days that the murder was to be committed.

She also asked the jury not to accept that her client, though he was not present at the scene, was still involved in the conspiracy because of his communication with the men after the shooting and the fact that he had returned to the Brooke Valley community after the incident.

McDonald said the Crown has not presented any evidence to show how her client’s communication contributed to the murder or that his absence was not because of his decision to withdraw himself from the murder. Also, she said it was not a coincidence that he was in the community after the shooting, as, based on the phone data, he would often frequent the area.

The trial will continue today with a closing address from Pink’s lawyer, Ernest Davis.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com