Defence lawyers sought to undermine what one described as the "abject poverty" of the case against two men accused of murdering Aquil Richardson.

Antoine Anderson's lawyer Benjamin Nolan QC said of the charges against him and Philip Bradshaw: "They've got it badly wrong. They've got the wrong men."

The jury is expected to be sent out tomorrow in the case, which began on January 26.

Mr. Nolan pointed out during his closing speech yesterday: "The law is such that unless you're sure that these are the right men, you cannot convict them."

According to prosecutors, Bradshaw was the pillion passenger and gunman on a motorbike ridden by his brother-in-law Anderson, 31. The bike allegedly drew up near a group of men including Mr. Richardson in Camp Hill, Southampton, around 8.30-9 pm on Boxing Day 2007.

Eyewitnesses have told the court the gunman, who wore a black fur-trimmed jacket, shot at the group and injured Lavar Smith in the leg.

He is then said to have got off the bike and shot 30-year-old Mr. Richardson twice in the head at close range as he lay on the ground.

Prosecution witness Malika Gumbs told the court during the trial that Bradshaw borrowed a black fur-trimmed jacket from her and rode off on the back of a bike with Anderson on the night in question.

The men deny murdering Mr. Richardson and wounding Mr. Smith.

Mr. Nolan spent much of yesterday's closing address talking about the shooting two days before late on Christmas Eve of Jakai Harford. Mr. Harford, who has family links to Anderson and Bradshaw, was shot as he travelled by car through the same area of Camp Hill, Southampton.

The incident, which left him wounded in the shoulder, occurred as he was leaving a party both defendants say they attended.

"Whoever fired those shots, you may think, intended to kill Jakai Harford. This was personal. The Police have a prime suspect for that shooting," said Mr. Nolan.

"You weren't told his name and it was proper not to inquire about his name because apparently there's an investigation ongoing and, inevitably, the public naming of a suspect is bound to compromise such an investigation. But they have a suspect, and you ladies and gentlemen are entitled to know that."

Mr. Nolan asked the jury to consider what the motives might be for both shootings, saying: "It is at this point that we raise what we submit is one of the most fundamental weaknesses in this prosecution. Where is the motive for this killing? Well, they don't have one. The silence from the prosecution on this aspect of the case is deafening."

He suggested that nothing had been raised by the prosecution to link the shootings in terms of Mr. Richardson having responsibility for the first, or the second being a revenge attack. There was nothing, he stressed, to explain why Mr. Richardson might have been singled out for execution or explain why Anderson might have wanted him dead.

Instead, he said, Anderson maintained that he and Mr. Richardson were good friends and they partied together on Christmas Eve.

Mr. Nolan then pointed to Mr. Richardson's brushes with the law for firearms and drug possession.

"The suggestion we have to make I don't want to speak ill of the dead is that he moved in circles involving the dealing of drugs and the carrying of firearms. Now, people who move in those circles tend to have rivals if not enemies... people who move in those circles are not going to be the best candidates for life insurance," he suggested.

Both Mr. Nolan and Bradshaw's lawyer, Anesta Weekes QC, noted there is only circumstantial evidence in the case. No witness purported to identify either of the accused as being the assassins, since the culprits' faces were hidden behind masks, visors, or both.

Ms Weekes pointed out that Bradshaw, who is married to Anderson's sister, only arrived in Bermuda from his home country of Jamaica 11 days before the killing.

"What motive has he got to kill a man he's never met? This is a man he didn't even have an opportunity to form a friendship with and he certainly never had opportunity to get to hate him because he'd never met him."

Ms Weekes also asked the jury to bear in mind that her client has no previous convictions, and is a "family man" and a "church-going man".

Chief Justice Richard Ground plans to sum up the case today, before sending the jury to consider verdicts tomorrow.