The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

THE defence and prosecution gave sharply conflicting accounts of the night a man allegedly set his grandmother and uncle on fire at Gibbs Corner in 2023 as lawyers delivered closing addresses in his attempted murder trial.

Ricardo Richardson denied throwing gasoline on either relative, claiming his uncle, Emile Humes, accidentally caught fire when gasoline ignited in mid-air. Prosecutors maintained that Richardson deliberately doused his relatives with gasoline and set them on fire following an argument.

Richardson is on trial before Justice Guillimina Archer-Minns. The matter was delayed on Tuesday because of power cuts at the Supreme Court complex.

He is accused of setting fire to Mr Humes and his grandmother, the late Magnolia Moxey, then 74, following an argument on November 27, 2023.

Defence attorney Walton Bain submitted that Ms Moxey suffered her burns after her son, who was already on fire, fell on her, rather than because Richardson had doused her with gasoline.

Richardson claimed he stopped at the house while on his way elsewhere after seeing his grandmother and uncle outside.

Mr Bain said Mr Humes intended to leave Ms Moxey at the Gibbs Corner residence, which Richardson described as abandoned and in dire need of repairs.

The defence said Richardson and Mr Humes began arguing after Richardson asked why his uncle had brought tools to the house.

Mr Bain portrayed Richardson as a caring grandson.

Richardson claimed Mr Humes told him that Ms Moxey was going to cause him to be kicked out of his apartment. He said his uncle was not making sense and appeared angry that night.

At some point during their discussion, Richardson said two puppies he kept in the yard were mentioned.

Mr Humes previously testified that the argument was about Richardson’s dogs. He said he had made a police complaint about the animals and that his mother was afraid of them.

Richardson claimed his uncle told him that when Ms Moxey died, he would burn down her Gibbs Corner house. Richardson said he responded that Mr Humes did not have to wait for his grandmother to die.

While Richardson admitted threatening to harm his uncle, he said the threat was conditional on Mr Humes burning down his grandmother’s house.

The defence claimed Richardson backed away as Mr Humes threw gasoline at him. It further claimed the gasoline and jug exploded in mid-air, causing Mr Humes to catch fire.

Mr Bain said Richardson assisted his grandmother after she caught fire, removing his shirt to beat out the flames before taking her to hospital.

The defence called Mr Humes a liar and rejected his account of the incident. Richardson maintained that he never threw gasoline at him.

Richardson also said his grandmother was “slipping” and needed assistance. Although Mr Bain acknowledged there was no medically documented illness, Richardson said Ms Moxey was not herself at the time.

The defence claimed Ms Moxey frequently wandered off and had previously suffered a stroke and been knocked down twice.

Mr Bain also referred to evidence from Portia Major, the mother of Richardson’s friend, who said Richardson was living with her in Killarney Shores at the time of the incident.

Prosecutor Khaula Reid objected when Mr Bain mentioned “dementia”, saying no evidence had been presented to support that claim.

Justice Archer-Minns cautioned Mr Bain to govern himself accordingly.

Mr Bain said his client was innocent and had willingly taken the witness stand in his own defence. He described the prosecution’s evidence as weak, vague and inconsistent and asked the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

Ms Reid, however, told jurors that Richardson’s intent to kill was clear.

She said the prosecution’s case was that Richardson attacked the relatives who raised him, throwing gasoline on them and setting them on fire.

Ms Reid said Richardson left his uncle burning at the house and had no justification or right to commit the alleged acts.

She said Richardson intentionally threw gasoline on Mr Humes’ back twice. According to the prosecution, Mr Humes questioned Richardson about what he was doing before he was set on fire.

Ms Reid rejected the defence’s claim that the incident was an accident.

She said Mr Humes suffered life-threatening burns to 80 to 90 percent of his body and required treatment in the trauma unit. He was placed in a coma for five weeks so that he would not feel pain, she said.

Ms Reid said the physician who treated Mr Humes and Ms Moxey vividly remembered them being admitted that night.

The prosecutor submitted that Richardson also tried to kill his grandmother because she was about three feet away from the anger he allegedly unleashed on his uncle.

She said the argument began over dogs in the yard and claimed Richardson became angry when he was asked to move them.

Ms Reid said the obvious consequence of setting someone on fire was that the person could die.

“For a reasonable human being,” she said, “this is what an intent to kill looks like.”

The prosecution said Ms Moxey’s police statements, which were read into evidence, indicated that gasoline got on her because she was close to her son when the incident occurred.

Ms Reid said Ms Moxey’s injuries were not confined to areas where her son allegedly fell on her, pointing out that she also suffered burns to her legs. Ms Moxey sustained burns to her chest, legs and hands.

The prosecutor said that despite Richardson expressing concern for his grandmother after she caught fire, he had to face the consequences of actions that could have claimed her life.

Ms Reid argued that Richardson’s account was untrue and had emerged for the first time 33 months after the incident.

She said his account was an attempt to shift blame and questioned why an alleged explosion would have propelled gasoline backwards onto Mr Humes while leaving Richardson unscathed.

Ms Reid also pointed out that Richardson could not remember which hand developed a bleb, a type of blister, following the alleged incident.

The prosecution further questioned why, if the gasoline jug exploded as Richardson claimed, there was no molten residue from the container on the pavement.

Ms Reid said Richardson’s version of events was not mentioned during his police interview.

She accused him of concocting an elaborate account using bits and pieces of the evidence and urged the jury not to be misled.

A doctor previously testified that Ms Moxey developed blebs as a result of her burns.

Ms Reid also called Ms Major, the defence’s second and only other witness, a “prop”.

She pointed out that Ms Major was not present during the incident and questioned why she had been called to testify.

Ms Reid suggested that Ms Major had come to court to lie for Richardson, whom she had testified she regarded like a son.

The prosecution also highlighted what it described as conflicting evidence about how long Richardson had been living with Ms Major. Richardson allegedly said he had lived with her for more than a year before the incident, while Ms Major said it had been only four to five months.

Ms Reid argued that Richardson’s account did not make sense.

The matter is expected to conclude later this week.

Cephia Pinder-Moss also represented the prosecution.