It was one of the most eagerly anticipated and high-profile court hearings that Bermuda has seen in recent times. Jeremy Deacon, Chief Reporter, recaps the three-monthSupreme Court trial of Kamal Worrell, who was found guilty by a majority verdict of murdering Chavelle Dillon-Burgess

Opening her case against Worrell, Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: “People were concerned about Chavelle because she had previously made complaints to police in November 2018 and June 2019 about abuse at the hands of the defendant.

“She complained of arguments and altercations that she would have with the defendant about the care of their son.”

Police, she said, visited her house to carry out a welfare check.

Later, the Supreme Court was read witness statements from Ms Dillon-Burgess from November 2018 and June 2019, in which she alleged that arguments about their child had escalated to physical violence.

Jurors heard that In December 2018, Ms Dillon-Burgess made a statement withdrawing her complaints about the first incident, but she later told police she had “changed her mind”.

She told officers in June 2019 that a dispute over their son’s food had turned violent, with Worrell shoving her and kneeling on her back.

Ms Dillon-Burgess claimed that when he got off her, she grabbed a metal spatula and pointed it at him, but he disarmed her and struck her in the forehead, cutting her.

In a police interview recorded after the allegation was made, Worrell said: “She has always been hostile. She has always been aggressive. I have never attacked her. I have only acted in defence.”

As the trial continued, Pc Gregory White told the court he spoke with Ms Dillon-Burgess outside their home, where she alleged that Worrell hit her several times with his hands and a cooking pot while she held their infant son.

Mr White says that he recommended Ms Dillon-Burgess received medical attention, and she later left with a family member.

He added that he was called to arrest Worrell two days later and took him to the Hamilton Police Station for an interview. To questions, he “mostly responded with ‘no comment’”.

Twice the trial was delayed.

When the jury returned, it was told that Worrell had a “toxic and abusive relationship” with Ms Dillon-Burgess. Giving evidence for the prosecution Mark Pettingill said he had spoken to her at his office and she “effectively confirmed to me she was in what I would describe as a toxic and abusive relationship”.

As the trial continued, a close friend and co-worker of Ms Dillon-Burgess, Twilia Ebbin-Wilson, told the court that she received a voice message over WhatsApp from Chavelle on April 11, 2020.

She told the jury: “In the voice note, her and Kamal Worrell were arguing. They were arguing about their baby.”

The court heard that Ms Ebbin-Wilson told Ms Dillon-Burgess, who was a private in the Royal Bermuda Regiment, to stay at Warwick Camp for her safety.

Ms Ebbin-Wilson said that, after several days without hearing from Ms Dillon-Burgess, she went to the home she shared with Mr Worrell. “I went to the door and asked if he knew where Chavelle was because she wasn’t responding to my calls or texts. He said he thought she was with me, and I said, ‘No, she’s not with me’.”

Ms Ebbin-Wilson told the court: “He was nonchalant, like, ‘I don’t know, she’s not with me then’.”

The trial was delayed after Worrell was admitted to hospital for a shaving cut.

When the case resumed, in a video interview from Britain, Chavelle’s estranged husband, Kimberley Scott Burgess, told the court about the last time he saw her: “She just didn’t look like the Chavy I knew. She had a split on her forehead.

“She told me what the lawyer was doing in terms of taking her money. He said she had no rights in the country. I guess she was crying out for help.”

The trial was delayed again, this time after some jurors fell sick.

Chavelle’s grandmother, Thelma-Jean Wong, gave evidence and said that in April 2020 she contacted Worrell because she had not heard from her granddaughter and was concerned.

She said that he told her they had a fight and Ms Dillon-Burgess had packed a bag of clothes and left. In court she said: “Chavelle has no car, she’s not with her uncle, she’s not with me and she’s not with her mom or her friends, so where is she?”

The senior investigating officer in the case, Detective Inspector Jason Smith, says that in the 3½ years since her disappearance, investigators had had no credible reports, intelligence or evidence that Ms Dillon-Burgess was alive.

Worrell cross-examined Mr Smith and asked about the circumstances of his arrest and the reasons why he was fitted with an electronic monitoring device.

Mr Smith replied that he authorised the ankle bracelet because of the seriousness of the offence and because Worrell was considered “high risk”.

Later Mr Smith continued to give evidence and said Worrell was tracked, in part, for his own safety. He told the court he was aware of “several threats” on social media against Worrell and saw it necessary to monitor his whereabouts. He added that as Mr Worrell was the main suspect in the case, it was necessary to keep track of him.

After Mr Smith finished his evidence, Michael Charlton took the stand and said he was a police officer in 2019 and investigated a domestic incident between Worrell and Ms Dillon-Burgess.

He said he did not see any aggression from Worrell and that he had his infant son with him until Ms Dillon-Burgess left the house and took the child with her.

Mr Charlton said he remembered seeing cuts on Worrell’s arms and glass on the floor, and the defendant suggested that the injuries came from Ms Dillon-Burgess shattering a window. But Mr Charlton said: “I remember that’s what you told me, but seeing as though I wasn’t there, I can’t say for sure.”

Mr Charlton added: “I could hear Chavelle telling my colleague that Mr Worrell was lying.”

On another day, the jury heard an audio of scrubbing and cleaning taken from the Worrell’s phone. The 20-minute recording included sounds of scrubbing, tapping and water being flushed down a drain as piano music played in the background.

Mr Worrell’s infant son could be heard crying in the background about halfway through the audio. The recording had no dialogue or context — but was taken approximately 90 minutes after a fight with Chavelle Dillon-Burgess.

In a twist, Chavelle’s mother took to the stand and said: “Get to the point. What did you do to my daughter? Where did you put her? She lived with you. She had a child with you. What did you do to my daughter?”

Later Worrell took the stand in his defence, denied any involvement in the disappearance of Ms Dillon-Burgess and all allegations of violence against her.

“I challenge anyone, police, the public, anyone who knows me, to come forward with anyone, man or woman, that I have assaulted, that I aggressed in any way,” he told the court.

Worrell told the court that he did not attend searches for her or vigils in her honour out of fear for his safety.

He said that in the wake of Ms Dillon-Burgess’s disappearance, he was made aware of threats towards him made on social media.

“I have my son, and I don’t see anything on social media myself, but it was brought to my attention by friends that a lot of things were going around,” he told the court.

“When all of that was going on, I had my son to deal with, and I had to think about my own safety. Part of the reason why I wasn’t at any of the public searches or vigils was I didn’t know who was out there.

“I didn’t want to put myself in that position or my son in that position.”

On another day of the trial, Worrell insisted he was innocent and told the court: “There’s no evidence, in my view. I have listened for a whole month. I have waited for three years. I say there’s no evidence.”

He later told the court he felt he had no need to make a formal statement in the disappearance of Ms Dillon-Burgess because a missing person report had already been made and he had already told police all that he knew.

“I had already given them all the information I could to officers,” he says. “Whether I made a statement or not, the information was the same.”

Summing up the case, 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 Worrell assaulted, wounded and eventually killed Chavelle.

Delivering her closing remarks, Ms Clarke suggested that 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.”

Delivering closing remarks in his defence, Worrell said there was no evidence before the court to show that he killed Ms Dillon-Burgess or disposed of her body.

“Speculation has no place in these chambers,” he said. “If that was the case, we could have trials on social media.”

Mr Worrell told the court that he loved Ms Dillon-Burgess and maintained that, despite the allegations against him, he was not a violent man.

“It’s unfortunate for justice in this country they have brought this case without evidence,” he said.

The jury disagreed.