The trial of two men accused of killing George Lynch neared its conclusion yesterday, with defence lawyers arguing that the cases against the men were based on the words of unreliable witnesses.

Wolda Gardner, 34, and Rickai Dickinson, 29, deny the premeditated murder of Mr Lynch, 40, who was gunned down in Hamilton Parish on May 5, 2010. They also deny using a firearm to carry out the offence.

The firearm used in the killing was recovered in St George’s more than a year after the shooting with Mr Dickinson’s DNA on it.

Mr Dickinson subsequently pleaded guilty to a single charge of handling a firearm, and the court heard he is currently serving a ten-year sentence for that offence.

Prosecutors allege that Mr Dickinson carried out the shooting with another individual not before the courts on the orders of Mr Gardner, who was described as “the brains and the brawn” of the St George’s-based gang East Side Crew (ESC).

Summarising the Crown’s case, prosecutor Carrington Mahoney said the shooting was linked to the trial of seven men charged with a group attack on Temasgan Furbert, who lived on the property where Mr Lynch was shot. Mr Mahoney said Mr Furbert, who had testified against his attackers, had been the intended target.

Mr Mahoney noted the evidence of a former ESC member (Witness A) who told the court that Mr Dickinson had made a series of unusual comments following the shooting, including that whoever was responsible was a “powerful man” and posted a BBM status which read: “Paid my dues, front page news. Lol.”

And Mr Mahoney noted a text message received by Mr Dickinson just 45 minutes after the shooting, telling him that someone would be coming to collect “the dog and the gold”. The court had heard that “dog” was gang slang for gun, while “gold” can refer to ammunition.

Regarding Mr Gardner, Mr Mahoney noted the evidence of a former friend (Witness B) who said the defendant admitted ordering the shooting and that the intended target was Mr Furbert.

However defence lawyer Charles Richardson, representing Mr Gardner, said the only evidence linking his client to the shooting was Witness B, whose testimony he said was plagued by contradictions.

Mr Richardson said that on the evening of the shooting Mr Furbert was actually in custody — a fact which the lawyer said everyone knew except for Witness B — and that while the witness had said he saw Mr Gardner carrying a firearm in a silver briefcase, the evidence was that the weapon used in the shooting had by that point already been seized by police.

He suggested Witness B had made up his story in an effort to get a clean slate for himself through witness protection, noting that the witness admittedly has a history of cocaine use and bipolar disorder.

Mr Richardson said: “Based on what he said alone, can you be sure this man ordered the premeditated murder of anybody? If you are not sure he did, then the rule is you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.”

Craig Attridge, representing Mr Dickinson, meanwhile described the Crown’s case as “individual bits of nothing which amount to nothing”. He argued the only real evidence against his client were the “perceptions and presumptions” of Witness A, noting that no charges were put against the defendant until the witness came forward with a statement.

“He had to accept that everything he perceived in May of 2010 could be wrong,” Mr Attridge said. “If [Witness A] accepts, as he must, that every one of his perceptions or presumptions could be wrong, how can you be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right?”

He said the evidence of the BBM status came from Witness A, not his client’s phone, and suggested that the status was actually that of Kaiwan Trott, one of the men acquitted of the assault on Mr Furbert.