A murder accused’s claims of innocence are “lies” and an “attempt to deceive” the jury, the Supreme Court heard yesterday.

Prosecutor Carrington Mahoney said testimony by defendant Prince Edness that he was not involved in the killing of Jason Lightbourne was full of inconsistencies compared with a police statement he gave, and contradictory to evidence from witnesses.

“You heard all that crap he was talking to you,” Mr Mahoney told the jury during his closing argument for the Crown.

Mr Edness, 29, is charged with the premeditated murder of Mr Lightbourne, 18, who was shot dead on Ord Road at about 4am on July 23, 2006.

Prosecutors say he worked with his friend Akil Williams, who died several weeks after Mr Lightbourne was killed, to commit the shooting.

The Crown alleges that Mr Lightbourne’s death was “tit for tat” revenge for the stabbing of an associate and was fuelled by a rivalry between two gangs — one from the Princess Street area of Hamilton, the other from Ord Road, Paget.

Mr Mahoney told the court that Mr Edness was using a “flip flop” defence and that his testimony in court differed from the statement to the Police six days after the murder — he told the Police he was at the hospital visiting his stabbed friend when the shooting occurred, but he told the jury that he arrived at the hospital after the murder, and that Mr Williams must have carried out the crime.

The prosecutor noted that a witness, the stabbing victim’s mother, said Mr Edness was at the hospital but left and returned with Mr Williams, and during the time he was gone, the shooting took place.

He also highlighted phone records which he said backed up this version of events.

The prosecutor told the jury that evidence of gunshot residue particles had been found on Mr Edness, and rubbished his claims that they must have been transferred to him by Mr Williams.

Mr Edness told the court on Tuesday that they fought after Mr Williams confessed to the shooting — he said he was angry that Williams asked for a lift on his bike, which could implicate him in the murder.

“The ‘fight’ was concocted by the accused to respond to the Crown’s case against him,” Mr Mahoney said.

The prosecutor said it was another “lie” created by a gang member who did not expect witnesses to come forth and “snitch” on him.

Defence lawyer Mark Daniels warned the jury against the “prejudice factor” and urged them not to make assumptions about Mr Edness because of his affiliations to a gang.

He highlighted that Mr Edness testified when he did not have to and “was frank, honest, put himself out there”, even admitting to being a drug dealer.

“Even when asked if he was part of [a gang], he didn’t lie,” Mr Daniels said, adding that while this was “pretty prejudicial”, it did not mean Mr Edness committed a murder.

The defence lawyer said there was no CCTV or DNA evidence linking Mr Edness to the shooting, nor any eyewitnesses who could place him or his bike at the scene.

Mr Daniels suggested that the witness at the hospital who saw Mr Edness leave and return could have been mistaken, and was probably more concerned about her son than paying attention to the movements of his friends.

He said that while there may have been inconsistencies in Mr Edness’s statement and testimony about times, he could have got those confused, but had been adamant that he did not leave the hospital and return.

He said it could not be confirmed whether the particles found on Mr Edness were in fact gunshot residue and suggested that they could even have been transferred to his client when he visited Police headquarters to be interviewed, saying the armoury was close to the Serious Crime Unit offices where he was questioned.

Mr Daniels said Mr Edness spoke to Police six days in the wake of the shooting and that after that period of time, when he would have bathed numerous times, it was unlikely that anyone would still have gunshot residue on their person.

The lawyer also highlighted a witness who told the court that she was a “friend and lover” of Mr Williams, who said that Mr Williams confessed to the killing with another associate.

She did not name Mr Edness in connection to the shooting.

Mr Daniels told the jury that the evidence they had been presented with had been “speculative information” and “nothing more than conjecture presented strongly as fact”.

He added: “The Crown have come up with nothing to discredit or disprove him.

“All roads lead away from Prince.”

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding active court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.