Two witnesses who claimed they could positively identify two of the men charged in the violent skirmish at Wellington Oval gave evidence in Magistrates? Court yesterday.

Both witnesses, who cannot be named in media reports due to a publication ban, were cross examined about the testimony they gave during the morning and afternoon trial sessions.

Four men charged are with various weapons offences in relation to the outbreak of violence at a friendship final football match on April 4. They are Wolde Trott, 21, of Paget, Kavon Earlstone Smith, 25 of Southampton, Jamie Ford, 23 of Warwick, and Ki-jah Russell Butterfield, 21, of Paget.

Trott and Smith are both charged with possession of an offensive weapon and going armed to a public place in a manner to cause terror. The pair, who have been diligently taking notes for the past few days while in the dock, originally pleaded guilty to the charges but have since changed their pleas to not guilty.

Ford is charged with possession of an offensive weapon, going to a public place in a manner to cause terror, and assaulting Antoine Anderson. He is represented by Mark Pettingill and denies the charges.

Butterfield, who is represented by defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher, is charged with possession of an offensive weapon and going to a public place in a manner to cause terror but denies the charges.

Identification has been a central issue in the case as lawyers debate the validity of DVD and photographic evidence and repeatedly question the ability of witnesses to make proper identification of the defendants.

The first witness who was called to testify yesterday said she saw a person who looked like Ki-jah Butterfield swinging a machete on the field on the afternoon of April 4. In a Police statement she said she saw Butterfield leaving the field after putting the machete down his pants. She said she saw what looked like Butterfield speak with another man and get into a small black car.

After being asked if she had ever lost sight of the person with the machete the witness repeatedly answered ?no?.

She was questioned about whether or not she could pick out Butterfield clearly from the number of men on the field that afternoon and if she had at any point lost sight of the man she thought was Butterfield. The witness said she was surprised to see Butterfield at the football game that day as she thought he was off the Island.

After being questioned by Ms Christopher as to whether or not she may have thought it was Butterfield based on a previous observation, she replied: ?I am certain that this is who I saw ? Ki-jah Butterfield ? as he was walking to the car and as he came closer it was confirmed.?

In the afternoon session the second witness who could also not be identified said he was sitting on his bike that afternoon and knew a couple of people involved in the fight. He said he recognised Wolde Trott, holding a knife and ?swinging it at my boy Tarik?. He said he was able to make an identification as he had attended the same school as Trott and pointed out the defendant who was sitting in the dock.

Almost immediately after making that identification, Ms. Christopher declared the action to be a ?dock ID? meaning the defendant had never been identified previously in an official Police line-up. Magistrate William Francis overruled the objection saying it was not a dock ID and a person who came to give evidence in the court was free to point out a person in the court. The witness, who spoke softly and had to be asked to speak up several times, said he believed the man with the machete was Ki-jah. After stumbling over the pronunciation of the name, Ms Christopher objected saying, ?I do not want to see any uncertainty on the part of the witness when he walks into the witness box. What I rise in response to is the witnesses uncertainty.?

Objections about various counsel?s approach to asking questions was also raised throughout the afternoon session. Crown Counsel Shade Subair criticised defence lawyer Leo Mills for failing to make an application to the court to use the photo evidence during cross examination of the crown witness.

?With all due respect my learned friend had not laid the foundation for this to be exhibited by the defence,? she said.

?Maybe he could instruct the court as to what instruction he is taking from Ms Christopher.?

Mr. Mills objected saying he intended to use the photographs to question the first witness about her testimony.

?This was a silly remark. Ms Subair is a lovely young lady and I ask her to respectfully withdraw the comment, it was most unworthy of her and it was a silly remark,? he said.

Ms Subair said she was only trying to establish proper court procedure and save the court time.

Previously in the trial, a witness was violently arrested after giving testimony and charged with perjury. Antoine Anderson, 27, of St. Monica?s Road, Pembroke, was charged with giving false testimony which he did not believe to be true, touching a matter which was material to a question in the proceedings, namely the identification of the defendants. He accused Police of falsifying his statement and told the court that he had been assaulted by Police at the lunch break of the trial.