Lawyers Larry Scott and Ed Bailey made impassioned pleas to a Supreme Court jury to not convict their clients Robert Blair Tucker and Terranz (Monster) Smith in the Lagoon Park murder trial yesterday.

But top prosecutor Kulandra Ratneser struck back late yesterday, starting his summation: “I'm going to remind you just what this case is all about. It's a case about five people, three here, in the box as defendants, one who is deceased and one who is a witness.”

Nearing its fifth month, the trial of Tucker, Smith and James (Spook) Dill may be in the hands of the ten woman, two man jury next week.

The trio deny killing American ex-con Stanley Lee (also known as Sean Russells or “Sha”) on July 28, 2001 in isolated Lagoon Park, Ireland Island South, after - prosecutors believe - relations soured when cocaine he had imported was found to be of low quality.

Mr. Ratneser told the jury: “These three men are self-confessed liars. They lied to Police over and over and over again. The deceased man is silent. And there is only one man left - Nathan Darrell.

“The amazing part of this whole story is that Nathan Darrell speaks to the web that was woven around Mr. Tucker,” he added. “You see, the nature of this man, Tucker, is that he is a liar.”

Mr. Ratneser continued: “Street justice that is what this case is about! There is no doubt that on the morning of the 28th, the relationship (between Tucker and Mr. Lee) had broken down.

“Nathan Darrell testified that he was headed to Windsong and met Tucker near the church in Pembroke Park. There is Tucker complaining to Nathan Darrell about the deceased and here is the deceased complaining about Tucker. And when Nathan Darrell saw them at Marley Beach, that was the last time that the deceased was seen by anyone else other than the defendants.”

With his voice turning even more serious tone, Mr. Ratneser told jurors that Smith and Tucker would have assumed by August 8 that Mr. Lee was in an advanced state of decomposition so as to preclude identification.

“The deceased was not Bermudian. He had no other links here other than these four men. (Smith) saw the knife wounds, but what did he say? ‘You'll never solve the crime'. Why? Because Mr. Smith and Tucker knew that the body had been decomposing for all that time. That's why they were quite happy to reveal that there was a body. They knew the skin was off the face and thought he couldn't be identified.”

Mr. Ratneser will continue with his summation this morning.

Ed Bailey, representing Smith, told jurors “I submit that they have failed to prove one iota” of the murder charge against his client. “Terranz Smith hasn't been an angel. He's not putting himself up there - but Terranz Smith says he's not a murderer. He didn't aid and abet, he didn't counsel and procure. All that he did was out of his curiosity he was shown the body because he had been told by Blair Tucker about it. Terranz Smith says he has nothing to do with this murder. He parted company with Sha on good terms.

“It's no secret that Terranz was involved in the drug dealing. But he's not on trial for drugs, he's on trial for murder. You know, Sgt. (James) Hoyte, I have to take my hat off to him, he says that Terranz Smith was a good citizen, and I thank him for saying it.”

Saying “If you don't believe anything Blair Tucker said to you”, Mr. Bailey said they must believe Tucker's testimony that Smith knew nothing about the murder before the body was shown to him the following day.

“Clearly, he (Smith) was a soldier of justice, nobody else revealed that a body could be found. He said that the reason he turned up that body to Police was that he wanted that man to have a decent burial. He told me that yet again, just this morning. Mr. Bailey reminded the jury that Smith's girlfriend's mother, “a good Christian lady” had testified that he was at home from after 4 p.m. on Saturday, July 28, 2001 and was home all that night, noting that is the time the Crown believe the murder took place.

Larry Scott, quoting from a popular piece of case law, said the case against Tucker was based on a “grave suspicion” against an admitted drug dealer.

Taking pains to tell jurors that Tucker has secrets to keep and “business” and business partners to protect, he said any fabrications in his statements should be seen through that prism.

Mr. Scott said the interaction between Tucker and Crown counsel Juan Wolffe on Tuesday and Wednesday in which he characterised was an aspect of his client's personality made him show “he doesn't suffer fools gladly” and “got up in the face” of the prosecutor.

That reaction Mr. Scott said, was the same reaction Tucker was giving Det. Sgt. Terry Maxwell - who he called “a certain kind of policeman” - in his statements and said jurors themselves would remember the detective's performance while under cross-examination.

“Tucker was up in his face too. He's kind of saying, ‘silly copper, this is not the knife from the butcher's block'. It's a funny kind of way of treating a cocky policeman. Make sense?” Mr. Scott said.

“He did the same sort of thing to my learned friend. Honestly, it was an interesting revelation, that interchange between Mr. Tucker and Mr. Wolffe. I guess he's the kind of person, who says, ‘I'm not afraid to get in your face' to a policeman. There isn't anything wrong with that. He's saying I couldn't have done it because the knife from the butcher's block is long gone.”

Mr. Scott encouraged jurors to examine a vest found at the scene, saying that testimony had shown Mr. Lee to be fastidious, but he said all of the cuts to the shirt were to the back of the shirt, while forensic pathologist John Obafunwa said the man died of “multiple chest wounds to the chest and abdominal cavity”.

“Why would he have had his vest on backward? Is this his vest or the vest of his attacker? You've got to resolve that. If this is his vest, where is the initial stab wound that they say happened?”

Moving closer to Tucker, Mr. Scott pointed out that his client is a slight figure, and asked jurors to consider “why didn't the burly Sha just turn around and beat this man?”.

Mr. Scott said Tucker could not have been “the Scarlet Pimpernel, here there and everywhere” on July 28 when Mrs. Anderson says he returned a key to her - under threat of being sued and with knowledge Police were involved in the non-payment of the bill.

“The Crown says he's lying. But does he have any reason to lie? Mr. Tucker is a drug dealer. He's got something to protect. You may not like the fact that he's in this business.

“But Police are now sniffing around, and being in his position, he can't afford to have good cops sniffing around his enterprises. I don't like saying it, but it's a fact. He's got something to protect and Sha had already put him in a difficult position.”