Lawmakers must seek tougher security to protect court witnesses, according to the lawyer who successfully defended Raheem Wray, cleared this week by a jury in the trial for the murder of Osagi Bascome.

Jerome Lynch, KC, hit back at a police statement insisting that the investigation of the footballer’s death had been “a meticulous and thorough process”.

The lawyer once again faulted the island’s culture of silence, saying that “being labelled a snitch is worse than being a murderer”.

Mr Lynch, whose closing statement in the trial decried the investigation as fraught with errors, told The Royal Gazette that there could be “no rejoicing in the acquittal of Raheem Wray”.

“One cannot escape the stark fact that Osagi Bascome was murdered on December 18, 2021, and his family and the country are entitled to justice.

“As I told the jury, convicting the wrong man is not justice.”

Mr Lynch disputed the assertion by Acting Detective Chief Inspector Derricka Burns that officers had been professional, diligent and “ensured that no stone was left unturned in the pursuit of justice”.

Ms Burns, who issued a statement on Tuesday, also said that police would welcome additional information from the public on the case, highlighting that there were “currently no further suspects in this matter”.

The officer commended the prosecution’s “unwavering commitment” in laying out the evidence for a compelling case, adding: “We respect the integrity of the judicial process and accept the court’s decision.”

Mr Lynch responded that the police investigation had failed to yield adequate hard evidence.

He said that in light of “the paucity of eyewitness testimony and its inherent weakness” for the case, the onus lay with police to ensure that “any forensic evidence that could be obtained was so obtained” — adding: “None was.”

The defence case during the trial was that a more compelling suspect than the defendant had remained at large for the killing of Mr Bascome.

The 23-year-old footballer died after being stabbed in a brawl outside a social event in St David’s.

Mr Lynch once again maintained that the defence had identified “the true killer” to police, to no avail.

“The car in which he drove away from the scene was never recovered, the knife used to kill was never recovered, the clothing of another suspect identified by us was never seized even though the police knew it was at the laundromat following a search in which his room was stripped bare, including his bedding.”

He called it a shortcoming that “ill behoves” Ms Burns’s advocacy of the police investigation.

“With the greatest of respect to the Acting DCI, unless she spent the last 24 hours revisiting the file, which I doubt, it is simply not possible to make that assertion.”

Mr Lynch disputed the police description of the prosecution’s case as compelling.

He noted the Crown’s heavy reliance on a witness, whose identity was protected by a court order.

“While no criticism can properly be made of the presentation of the case by the Director of Public Prosecutions, identification cases are rarely compelling,” Mr Lynch said.

“On the contrary, they are inherently weak as the courts across the Commonwealth jurisdictions have pronounced upon many times.

“In this case the only witness who claims to have seen the stabbing accepted he sent messages saying he had been paid $10,000 to make a statement, and a further $10,000 to give evidence — leaving one witness who saw no knife at all and another who only saw a knife after the event momentarily.”

Mr Lynch said just one witness came forward from a list of 83 names taken at the venue under Covid-19 restrictions, branding it “a source of considerable concern and, frankly, shame”.

“That no one dialled 911 at the time is equally disturbing.”

Mr Lynch added: “Such is the culture in our society that we have reached the point where just the sense that to be seen as a snitch is to risk your life and consequently no one comes forward even after a killing.

“There are those who would seek to intimidate potential witnesses and many have previously been threatened, assaulted and even killed.

“The time has come when the state must do something about it.

“In the UK and elsewhere, it is possible to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens and even with voice modulation, we need to give serious consideration to that course.

“That requires legislation.”

The two-week trial was overshadowed by two incidents assailed by Assistant Justice Mark Pettingill as undermining the courts.

In one incident, the judge condemned social-media posts on the trial as an impediment to justice. Mr Justice Pettingill did not specify the nature of the online commentary but branded it a “poison in our society”.

It was also revealed by police, after the case closed, that two members of the public had allegedly assaulted the defendant as he left the Supreme Court.

Mr Lynch said that “for the Bascome family and the country generally”, police should review “what went wrong in the gathering of evidence rather than patting themselves on the back”.

The Bermuda Police Service declined to comment.

• 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