A Supreme Court jury was urged to ignore smoke, mirrors and “forced emotion” from a defendant accused of murdering Chavelle Dillon-Burgess.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that there was no “magic witness” who saw the crime, but the circumstantial evidence should leave the jury confident that Kamal Worrell assaulted, wounded and eventually killed her.

Mr Worrell, argued that prosecutors had sought to brand him as a manipulative and abusive partner to Ms Dillon-Burgess, even though she had withdrawn her allegations in court.

“Either she was lying when she made the allegations or she was lying when she made the oath to tell the truth and say they are all lies,” Mr Worrell said.

“My friend is asking you to believe that she was lying under oath. If that was the case, why would she do that?

“I say she didn’t lie under oath. I say she told the truth when she recanted all her allegations.”

Mr Worrell has denied allegations of murdering Ms Dillon-Burgess on an unknown date between April 10 and June 11, 2020.

He has also denied a charge of wounding Ms Dillon-Burgess and a charge of common assault related to an incident on June 1, 2019 and six counts of common assault related to an incident on November 14, 2018.

Delivering her closing remarks, Ms Clarke suggested that Mr Worrell thought Ms Dillon-Burgess was ruining his career, pressing criminal charges against him and seeking custody of their child.

“She was ruining his life. He really couldn’t move on. He wasn’t living the life he felt a lawyer should be living,” she added. “He’s not bringing money into the house. She was the provider.”

Ms Clarke said Mr Worrell had the opportunity to carry out the murder, noting that movement around the island was heavily restricted due to the Covid-19 pandemic when Ms Dillon-Burgess disappeared.

She also noted the allegations of domestic violence, stating that a pattern of abuse can sometimes result in death.

Ms Clarke noted that Ms Dillon-Burgess had accused Mr Worrell of kneeling on her chest, preventing her from breathing, adding: “Since George Floyd, we know it doesn’t take long when someone can’t breath.”

She added that Mr Worrell’s background as a criminal defence attorney meant he was well aware of the importance of disposing of evidence when a crime takes place.

Ms Clarke said that there was evidence that data was deleted from Mr Worrell’s phone, records did suggest the fate that may have befallen Ms Dillon-Burgess.

She said that Ms Dillon-Burgess cursed Mr Worrell in a voice note to a friend on the morning of April 11, with the defendant heard responding angrily in the background.

“Immediately after the incident he’s busy with something because he’s not looking at his phone, not responding to messages,” Ms Clarke said.

She said that was followed by an audio recording on Mr Worrell’s phone, of what she described as cleaning with the sound of classical music and a child crying in the background.

Ms Clarke also urged the court to consider the demeanour of Mr Worrell, stating that while several witnesses struggled to hold back emotions while giving evidence, Mr Worrell only appeared to cry when describing his challenges in defending himself.

She said Ms Dillon Burgess gave consistent stories of assault when talking to her friends, family and doctor and only changed her story when she was in court with the defendant in the room with her.

Ms Clarke said: “Do you think she was really lying? Or was she trying to stop the attacks the only way she knew how, to do what the defendants told her to do.”

While Mr Worrell had suggested animosity between himself and Jason Smith, the officer in charge of the case, Ms Clarke questioned why an officer would risk their career for the defendant.

“He is the only one who thinks he’s that important,” she added.

Responding in his own closing statement, Mr Worrell objected to Ms Clarke’s suggestion of “smoke and mirrors” stating that he had done nothing other than try to give the jury all of the evidence available so they could make an informed verdict.

“I don’t see myself trying now, or through any witness, to try to trick or bamboozle or twist evidence in some crafty way,” he said. “I don’t see it.”

Mr Worrell argued that prosecutors had treated him unfairly, noting that despite years of requests, he was only able to receive the data from his phone after the trial had already begun.

“It really boggles my mind and concerns me what we have going on here,” he said. “The prosecution had this evidence. The defence requested it to prepare for the case. They refused for three years.”

He added: “It’s not acceptable. It’s not normal. It’s not fair. It’s just not fair.”

Mr Worrell said that while Ms Dillon-Burgess did make complaints of domestic violence against him, she had later recanted under oath and admitted that she had lied.

He added that there was nothing in the phone record to support any claims of violence or any coercion by him try to convince her to withdraw the allegations.

“There is not a single text from her to me, or from me to her, which would even suggest that I had been violent,” he said.

“Nothing to suggest that she had been hit, (nothing) to suggest that she was afraid of me, (nothing) to suggest that she didn’t want to be around me. Nothing of that sort.”

Mr Worrell said the messages suggested that she had sought to move back in with him shortly after one incident of alleged violence.

He said that Ms Dillon-Burgess had launched charges against him out of retribution after he refused to let her back into his house.

Mr Worrell accepted that he had helped Ms Dillon-Burgess craft a letter to the courts in an effort to halt proceedings against him, but a recording on his phone showed that it was her desire to end the case. The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case