Prosecution’s closing speech – #KartelMurderTrial
Posted on February 21, 2014 by emilycrooks

Here are my verbatim notes of the closing speech of the prosecution in the Kartel and others murder trial.

Lead prosecutor Jeremy Taylor – on his feet. If a sentence does not make sense, it may be my error in forcing my fingers to keep apace with the normal speech of the prosecutor delivered in real time. Mr. Taylor begins his submission after the lunch hour immediately after Tom Tavares Finson completes his.


Madam Foreman and your members.

Good Afternoon.

I apologize to you for having me to listen for the rest of the day.
Again I apologize as I can’t give you voice variation. I don’t have the talent of mimicry. I can’t round up my mouth and say ‘Ahha Wallah hah!’

(Taylor ridicule of Tavares Finson’s histrionics is met with laughter by all in the courtroom)

I urge you madam foreman if you feel sleepy don’t fall asleep when I go on and on. My friend said I will address you for 3 days perhaps he’s hacked into my phone. But hacking is not new in this trial.

(Taylor opens with a bang as the courtroom laughs with him – a smile has already popped from the face of the judge twice – Taylor humour)

I thank you. You have been patient. You have endured. From the legal points and arguments you may have wondered a number of things. Some of you are self employed and have had to take care of your own affairs and do justice. Much of the case has been technical. It has been technical, boring. Some of you may have rested your head back on the hard bench and fallen asleep in the back. I felt that way at times but couldn’t as it would not look appropriate.

But this is no benchmark case. The only thing that makes this a benchmark is that we have been sitting a tough benches for months.

(Taylor is at his wittiest best – taking jabs at Tavares Finson and being read appropriate by the court including the jury).

This is a simple case. This case had technical issues, handwriting, viva voce evidence which means – witness came and described what he saw.But it’s not benchmark case.

In all of excoriating of my friend, he never once mentioned the name Clive Williams. (slight murmur in the court when this is said)

There’s another person in this matter – Clive Williams a name Mr. Finson never once mentioned in his address.

(Mr. Taylor asks for a picture of Clive Williams to be circulated in the jury box and then continues)

Mr. foreman and your members, I have circulated that picture so that you don’t forget that there’s a real person at the base and foundation of this trial. While the accused Palmer, – have been free to make their case for their innocence in another trial one that took place 16 Aug 2011, Clive Lloyd Williams otherwise called Lizard was not given that opportunity. There we allege Adidja Palmer was judge, jury and executioner of Clive Williams. And he comes here invoking notions of justice and fairness that Clive Williams didn’t get on August 16, 2011.

(Another item is circulated in the jury box. This time, letter purportedly written by Lamar Chow. Mr. Taylor says he will come back to that. He continues)

You don’t need to agree with me on submissions I make but I am duty bound to put them to you.

There is a limitation – equality of arms – ethics of profession says we are to approach our job in a measured fashion. We can’t get emotional nor get invested in the trial. At no time will you hear me ask you to convict the accused. This is because prosecutors are not invested in the outcome. I can put the evidence before you and ask for you to be bound by your oath. But myself and Mr. Morris can’t do that.

We can’t be emotional about any case we prosecute because you may get emotional and convict based on the emotions and that would be wrong. So you won’t see this.The ethics of the case demand that I do not.

Third thing – whereas my friend can speak and accuse persons of being corrupt, incompetent and part of conspiracy. I can’t do that. If I were to do that and secure convictions it may be overturned on appeal But I asked for same the attention you gave to him.

In this case Madam Foreman and Members of the Jury – I am going to be asking you to decide the case purely on evidence not on the basis of prejudice or bias that you may have – none to the accused neither prejudice to prosecution case. Decide dispassionately based on the evidence.

Mr. Palmer has put his appearance in issue. The first time that came into issue was when he rose to give his statement from dock which is not evidence. But it fits into direction which the judge will give. What he describes as his bleaching and tattooing are irrelevant. Some of you may have thought he was emotionally overcome when he gave statement from the dock which is not evidence. His voice may have cracked, he pointed to grand mother and other members of his family, that is not to sway you.

But if you bring emotion here, I will bring emotion of the sister of Clive Williams, Stephanie Brackenridge who broke down and wept so much that Rogers had to end his cross examination. But you cannot bring that into it.

When all is said and done Mr Palmer’s family knows where to find him. They can still see him. They can bring toothpaste for his. They can bring boxers for him. He can still see them. But where is Clive Williams. Is he chopped up fine fine so no one can see him. Is he mince meat. Did his sister get a chance to church his body. To this day he has not been seen nor heard from.

When you compare those 2 emotions it’s easy to get lost and sidetracked.

Questions of fact – whether Stephanie Brackenridge has seen her brother. She reported him missing at Waterford Police Station.

The letter you just read, th last sentence seemed to have been tacked on as an afterthought. ‘The reason why I Don’t want to come to court is because I see Clive after that’

The writer hasn’t even put a date although he has included a date in the letter itself.

So is Clive Willaims chopped up fine fine …is he mince meat or is he still alive. That is the first issue in this case. You must determine whether you find as a question of fact whether Clive Williams is alive. If you decide he’s alive, the case is done.


Is Clive Williams still alive – if evidence satisfies you that he’s dead move on to ask if Palmer, Campbell, Jones, Williams and St. John are guilty of causing his death.

In determining that you must consider the case of all 5 separately – you can’t jumble dem up – you can’t say if Palmer is guilty all are guilty …you must look at the evidence of all separately.

Certain aspects of evidence when do not touch and concern some of these accused. For example the evidence about Shane Williams – Whether it’s Williams Shane in the video having discussion about killing somebody; in relation to Jones – contained in evidence of. Chow is information that when he went to Swallowfield, Jones was there.

With Campbell and Palmer, the evidence runs the full spectrum from Chow to the technical evidence. Those two cross a broad spectrum. The evidence not as narrow or focused.

End of first day of submissions….Taylor to continue

Prosecution’s closing speech – #KartelMurderTrial

0 thoughts on “JERMEY TAYLOR PART 1

  1. I like Jeremy Taylor”s closing speech. Sounds like a brilliant lawyer with an analytical mind. He gave a colorful account of what appeared to be a high quality speech that is fair and balanced. Look how de man a pierce (jook) his adversaries wid a powerful closing argument, with the hope that the jury will return a guilty verdict. Yea man, him do him ting!! He shedded light upon the main act done, and reminded the jurors neatly, that the sole purpose of a trial court should be the discovery of the truth and the enforcement of justice. I hope the outcome will be that the judge will give swift punishment to the five outlaws, who feel say dem can outwit anybody. So, to Vybz Kartel and him crew, just want you to know dat we naw go give de devil any recognition because God a God, and time will tell.

    1. He did the most important thing………and that was to humanize lizard.. who tavares did not mention..whatever happens…Jermey Taylor did his work..much respect

  2. I’m loving his brilliance. He’s methodical in disarming the defense. He’s eliminated any inference to a state conspiracy by telling the jurors to eliminate prejudice. He’s actually putting on a defense of the accuses right to a fair trial, again undermining any conspiracy to convict. He also points out the difference between his presentation of the evidence verses the defense’ underhanded tactics calling the witnesses liars with no evidence to the contrary.
    Wonderful job!

    1. The brilliant spin was him imbuing the defense of the accused and asking the jury to take out the prejudice and emotional appeal as expressed by Finson! Finson has years of experience as a lawyer and he made this personal damn fool

    1. Jermey say..dem a bawl…but dem fi memba lizard sister and him girlfriend whey cudden finish testify! dirty skums dem..but I want to know why Lorne in his statement talk bout no violence nuh committed pan di tape and on the same hand they are saying the police made it up…Finson also lied in his closing argument

      1. Finson is one of them “Uptung Buttoo” ( as my cantankerous father would say). After all even his daughter did run around , a bawl “Gaza mi seh”
        The white people in Britain would call them “Fur coat and no knickers” people.

          1. God did tell David him faithful servant 1 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

  3. Finson is an old fart. Mi nuh rate him. Yu nuh see say him couldn”t even defend him own son – in -law wey a do time inna prison right now.

  4. Met!!!!! Yuh see why me haffi rate Taylor!!!! Me rate him to the max! The man keep it professional and even though him a tek it to the defense, him a do it intelligently. I love what he is doing. Finson only know how fi quarrel and carry on like a market him deh. I have never seen someone so unprofessional. But me can’t even blame him cause a so dem behave inna parliament so him can’t do any better.

  5. throughout this whole trial i thought the prosecution presented the case weak. i had a lot of questions that i said to myself, “why aren’t the prosecution asking such and such.”

    in my opinion mr. taylor did a lousy job when presenting the case. but i am now left to wonder, if this is the same mr. taylor that has been representing the state all along. i am very impressed with his closing argument, i am also very pleased with his conduct.

    i wish he had this in him the whole trial, and i just wonder if, this was a little to late to drive his points home.

    unlike mr. finson’s closing argument, i read this in its entirety and was amused by his wit. mr. finson on the other hand…..oh gosh him dry, boring and unprofessional till it luk really bad. all di theatrics him employ juss mek him luk silly and clownish.

  6. Lundun it’s like me and you is of the same train of thoughts, I just made the same comments on the other thread about Taylor and Finson, I just hope the jurors will come up with the same conclusions as you and I both did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top