A man accused of breaking into a woman's apartment denied that she saw him running from the scene with her hand bag while smiling.

The trial of Tewolde Madhim Selassie, 29, came to an end yesterday with closing legal arguments from the defence and the prosecution.

The complainant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, described to a jury on Monday how she woke up at 5.30 a.m. to see a man's leg vanishing through the window. She woke up her daughter, who was sleeping in the same room, and then saw the man running down the street.

Jurors are expected to begin their deliberations this morning in Supreme Court number one, with Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons presiding.

Selassie is accused of stealing the woman's handbag from her Pembroke home, which contained money, jewellery and personal items. He denies the offence. On May 5, 2005, he told the Police officer taking his fingerprints: "I told the cops they got the wrong guy."

However, when a fingerprint expert examined two marks taken from the window frame, one from the side and another from the edge, one matched the right thumb print of Selassie.

The defendant stated on Tuesday that he had visited the house a week earlier to ask the complainant if she needed any painting, electrical or landscaping work done.

Senior Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney described that defence as a "concoction."

Furthermore, Mr. Mahoney emphasised the case was one of identification, urging jurors not to give weight to the fact that the woman earlier stated the man she saw fleeing had a close hair cut and Selassie has braids.

"All of this about hair is all about nothing," Mr. Mahoney argued. "It's become abundantly clear that the accuser saw the defendant running down the road.

"Just picture the accuser waking up at 5.30 a.m. and having the experience of seeing a man going through a window she had locked.

"Picture her looking out the window at 5.30 a.m. and seeing a man running 100 yards away up the road."

Selassie testified that the accuser was his cousin whom he never knew personally until she walked up to him one day and introduced herself.

And after that he would only see her on the street in passing, saying "hello" and "good afternoon" to her. The complainant, however, stated to the jury on Monday that she has never met Selassie.

This led Mr. Mahoney to paint him as a conniving person who was only surveilling her as part of his scheme. And the fact that Selassie said he visited her house after noticing her car in the drive way, showed he was casing her home for a possible hit.

Then there was the issue of a partial palm print found on the frame of the window Selassie is accused of entering through.

Mr. Mahoney claimed the unknown print was found on the outside in such a way indicative of someone trying to gain entry.

Defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher said the complainant caused the palm print after she looked through the window on the night in question.

"After a few knocks, because the car was in the yard, I assumed someone was home so I knocked a few times on the window close to the door," Selassie said of his visit looking for work.

He added he did not touch the glass pane, but had knocked on the window frame. Asked by defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher whether he had ever been inside the house, he said: "No I haven't."

Yesterday, Mr. Mahoney told the six man, six woman jury that he found it strange someone would knock on the more thicker frame of a window instead of the glass, which would be better heard.

"I know that knocking on this part of the window could hurt one's knuckles," he explained.

While pointing to a photo of the accuser's house, Mr. Mahoney dismissed Selassie's claim that he had knocked on a window on the left side of the apartment because no one answered the door.

In the photo, he pointed at another window that is closer to the front door that Selassie could have knocked on if he was truly looking for the woman and not just casing the home.

Ms Christopher said she found nothing strange about Selassie's admission to have knocked on the thicker frame of the window in question, instead of the glass.

"I'd be nervous about knocking on someone's window too," she said.

"Just because (Selassie) said he was at the accuser's house at 5.30 p.m. a week before (the alleged break-in) doesn't mean he must have been at the house 5.30 in the morning."

Ms Christopher declared the woman's testimony to having seen Selassie fleeing from a distance while smiling, as "confusing evidence".

She made clear that the woman misidentified her client as the culprit, chiefly because she said the man she saw had short hair.

Responding to Selassie's admission in court that he had lied to the Police about the matter initially, because he thought they would try to frame him, Ms. Christopher conceded: "It's a straightforward case in my mind.

"Lies told out of court are done for a whole host of reasons and not necessarily with a guilty conscience