A witness who gave an eye-witness account of what he saw at the violent Wellington Oval skirmish admitted in Magistrates' Court yesterday that the information he gave in a Police statement may not be correct.

During the Friday morning trial session the witness agreed with the defence counsel's suggestions that he might not have seen all the events at the game described in a Police statement.

The fact that he wanted certain portions of his statement erased and could not be clear about who was attacking and who was defending and what weapons were present formed a major plank of lawyer Elizabeth Christopher's defence.

The witness initially stated that he saw Tarik Foster ? a man who sustained injuries in the skirmish down on the field ? but he changed his mind after looking at a series of photographs depicting the melee.

The Magistrates' Court trial of the four men accused of various weapons offences in relation to the outbreak of violence at Wellington Oval in April continued yesterday.

The four men are charged with various weapons offences in relation to the outbreak of violence at a friendship football final. They are Wolde Trott, 21, of Paget, Kavon Earlstone Smith, 25 of Southampton, Jamie Ford, 23 of Warwick, and Ki-jah Russell Butterfield, 21, of Paget.

Trott and Smith are both charged with possession of an offensive weapon and going armed to a public place in a manner to cause terror.Trott and Smith have pleaded not guilty to going armed to cause terror in a public place and not guilty to possession of an offensive weapon.

Jamie Ford, 23, of Warwick, is charged with possession of an offensive weapon, going to a public place in a manner to cause terror, and assaulting Antoine Anderson. He is represented by Mark Pettingill and denies the charges.

Butterfield is charged with possession of an offensive weapon and going to a public place in a manner to cause terror but denies the charges.

Defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher questioned the witness about what he saw that day, suggesting he may have embellished his testimony out of loyalty to his friends. The witness, who cannot be named due to a publication ban, said: "I saw him (Foster) go down but did not see how he went down. He was wearing a red and white hat."

In his Police statement the witness said Everett Trott was protecting Tarik from the other men involved in the violence with a piece of "two by four" board.

"Are you saying that you reject that statement?" said Ms Christopher.

The witness agreed.

Initially, the witness said one of the photographs taken at the game, shows a friend protecting Tarik Foster. When he was shown several more photographs in a series by Ms Christopher, he agreed with her suggestion that the man lying on the ground was not Tarik Foster.

Ms Christopher suggested the witness had mistakenly identified Ki-jah Butterfield's brother rather than Ki-jah Butterfield himself.

She continued to go through the Police statement in which the witness said he saw a tazer gun, machetes and a weapon.

The witness said he had requested the portion of the statement about a gun to be erased in hindsight.

"I am going to suggest to you that you made the statement knowing that it contained false information," said Ms Christopher.

She said the witness had stated these facts based on discussions with other people about what happened at the game and had an unreliable recollection of events.

"I am going to suggest to you that you are not a witness who is worthy of belief. You have a way of filling in the blanks," said Ms Christopher.

The witness replied with: "I suppose."

He agreed when Ms. Christopher said he did not directly see the action but arrived on the field and witnessed a confusing crowd scene.

Mr. Francis also questioned the witness himself throughout the trial in an effort to establish clarity about what particular portions of the statement the witness wished to retract.

The trial resumes on June 22.