Wray found not guilty of killing Osagi Bascome
A Devonshire man has been found not guilty of the murder in 2021 of a member of the national football team after a jury of ten women and two men deliberated for seven hours.
Raheem Wray had been charged with a single count of murder in connection with the fatal stabbing of Osagi Bascome in the early hours of December 18, 2021.
Family members of Mr Bascome and Mr Wray in the gallery broke down in tears as the verdict was read.
Several of the Wray family, including his mother, fell to their knees and started praying, thanking God for the verdict.
Members of the Bascome family shouted in disbelief and anger.
One woman accused the jury of being “wicked people” and was escorted out of the courtroom.
Mr Wray himself fought back tears as he thanked Assistant Justice Mark Pettingill, who oversaw the trial, for his release.
He left the courtroom escorted by police and surrounded by his family.
During the trial, the Supreme Court heard that Mr Bascome was involved in an altercation outside a party at Fun Zone in St David’s when he suffered two stab wounds to his left side.
He was taken to hospital in a car by other partygoers, but one of the two injuries punctured his heart’s left ventricle, causing his death.
The court heard that 83 names were on a contact-tracing list at the party, but only one of those individuals provided a statement to police, and no one called 911 from the party.
One witness, who cannot be identified because of a reporting restriction, said that he had heard what he believed to be a punch and turned to see Mr Bascome looking shocked.
He said he then saw Mr Wray stab Mr Bascome with a poking motion before leaving the area in a car.
Onias Bascome, the victim’s brother, said he heard the victim shout at Jahnazae Swan, also known as Naz, why Mr Swan’s brother had sucker-punched him.
He said he had gone to speak with Mr Swan to calm the situation when he heard his brother calling out to him and saw him bleeding from the chest.
He said he then saw Mr Wray approach him with a knife in his hand.
Both witnesses said they found out after the fact that Mr Bascome had fallen out with Mr Swan, a former friend, over a deal involving the sale of $2,500 in CBD oil.
Mr Wray told the court that on the morning of the stabbing Mr Swan had told him that Mr Bascome had told him he would repay him the $2,500.
He said that he was in a car with Mr Swan preparing to leave the party when he heard Mr Bascome cry out that he had been punched.
The defendant said that Mr Swan then got out of the car and approached the murder victim before the pair began a heated exchange, which became physical.
He said others became involved in the fight, and he later heard a scream, but did not see Mr Bascome get stabbed or who was responsible.
An altercation outside the courtroom last week sparked security concerns in the midst of the high-profile murder trial.
At about 2.30pm on Wednesday, shortly after the trial of Raheem Wray broke for the day, a disturbance took place outside Sessions House.
A police spokesman said that two members of the public allegedly assaulted Mr Wray as he was being escorted from the Supreme Court.
The incident sparked a police response, with officers visible outside Sessions House and the surrounding area shortly afterwards.
The spokesman said that the men fled the scene before additional officers arrived.
He added that an investigation immediately opened into the incident and two suspects were arrested.
Both suspects have been released on police bail pending further investigation.
The trial resumed the following day from a courtroom inside the Dame Lois Browne-Evans building, but the change of venue was decided before the altercation.
That day, Assistant Justice Mark Pettingill described the incident as “entirely unacceptable”, adding that CCTV cameras were in place outside the courthouse.
He said that the culprits showed “disdain” for the law and had “undermined” the justice system.
“We cannot have a situation in this country where we are having an affray outside the courtroom,” he said.
“Officers of the court were assaulted in the mêlée. I have never in my 30-year career seen the type of thing I saw yesterday. It was totally unacceptable.”
Addressing the public gallery, where family and friends of both murder victim Osagi Bascome and the defendant sat, Mr Pettingill said that they should come forward and contact the police before the police contacted them.
He said: “I am asking those here to heed my words. If you have any influence on those who are inclined to behave that way, encourage them to contact the police.”
As the trial concluded yesterday, armed officers were in place inside and outside the Dame Lois Browne-Evans building.
Mr Justice Pettingill reiterated his warnings to the public gallery, stating that while he knew it was an emotional case for all involved, those in attendance must maintain a “sense of calm and not react”.
Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the jury that although there was no forensic evidence, the Crown’s case was “rock solid”.
She said that there were three strands of circumstantial evidence that the jury should focus on – opportunity, the behaviour of the defendant before the stabbing and his behaviour immediately afterwards.
Ms Clarke also said that identification was “at the heart of this case” and pointed to the evidence of witnesses who had seen Mr Wray involved in the altercation and one who had seen the stabbing itself.
Jerome Lynch, KC, counsel for Mr Wray, argued that police had failed to consider other suspects after the defendant was arrested and charged.
He said that there was tension between Mr Swan and the victim over a drug debt that Mr Bascome had refused to pay, and that, according to the victim’s brother, Mr Swan was “hyped and angry” on the night of the killing.
Mr Swan was identified by one independent witness as the man involved in the initial fight with Mr Bascome, and Mr Lynch also pointed out that Mr Swan left the island last year and his whereabouts are not known.
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
