The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON


Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A JUDGE told the jurors of the John Bull Rolex Boutique robbery trial that the critical question for them during their deliberation on a verdict will be ‘who were the robbers?’

Justice Indra Charles, during her summation of nearly six months’ worth of evidence, told the nine-member jury that they would have to consider this question among many when deciding the fates of David Collins and Jonathan Armbrister.

It is alleged that Collins and Armbrister robbed the Bay Street store of 12 watches, together worth $395,360, last May.

During the raid, a masked man used a hammer to smash open the display cases before taking the luxury watches.

An accomplice was armed with a rifle and a third man had driven a getaway car.
A third man stood trial with the pair when the trial began in May this year.

However, Jasper Curry was acquitted of armed robbery in August when Justice Charles directed the nine member jury to return a 9-0 not guilty verdict against the accused.

Curry, who was on bail, was told by Justice Charles that he was free to go while Collins and Armbrister would still be prosecuted.

The trial continued for nearly eight weeks before closing addresses were made to the jury early last week and on Monday.

Yesterday Justice Charles told the jurors that the case for the prosecution could be divided in two ways, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

She said the direct evidence, based on the testimony of the witnesses and the video footage shown in court, came from witnesses sighting masked men entering the store on May 22, 2011 and breaking a Rolex showcase before making off with the watches in a car.

Circumstantial evidence, she said, would be evidence from witnesses like the police who testified that they came in contact with the accused and found them in possession of some of the watches stolen from the store. Justice Charles told the jurors that they could also consider the cross-examination of the witnesses and police officers as regards the ‘evidence.’

Attorneys Geoffrey Farquharson (for Collins) and Jerone Roberts (for Armbrister) were vocal about ‘discrepancies’ in the evidence of the police, particularly about the location of where the watches were found.

Both defendants and their counsel claim that the police fabricated their evidence that they found four Rolex watches at Armbrister’s home on Tyler Street and two watches on Collins’ with price tags still attached.

Justice Charles said the defence had asked why the prosecution failed to produce fingerprints.

Prosecutors said the culprit used 
gloves during the raids, as seen in video footage where the culprits were also wearing masks.

With none of the witnesses inside or outside the store able to put a face to the culprits, the judge told the jurors that the critical question for them would be to determine ‘who were the robbers?’

Justice Charles will continue her summation today.