Counsel for a man accused of murder said that the prosecution’s case against his client was built on a “contaminated stream of evidence” from two men who admitted lying to the police.

Charles Richardson, representing Eze Hart, said that the Crown’s star witnesses had concocted falsehoods to avoid suspicion that they might have accidentally killed their friend, Kanye Ford, in the confusion of a brawl.

He compared them with his client, whom he said was a man of upstanding character with no criminal ties — while the other two admitted lying to police, stealing bikes and carrying knives.

Mr Richardson said: “It’s a case based entirely on the testimony of confessed liars, two young men who confessed to lying over and over.

“Witnesses who have admitted that they conspired to obstruct justice and whose story has shifted until they have landed in the lap of the police and in the court.”

He said that Mr Hart and defence witness Adia Gibbons had, in contrast, presented a plausible and consistent account of a fight that ended in a “self-created disaster”.

Mr Richardson added: “You don’t have to believe the defendant’s version of events. You just have to believe that the prosecution version might not be true.”

Mr Hart, 22, has denied murdering 16-year-old Mr Ford in the Horseshoe Bay car park on September 9, 2022.

Mr Richardson said that both the Crown’s main witnesses had to be convinced to give statements to police, and their statements lacked details.

Mr Richardson noted that Jansen Smith first said he saw nothing in his initial interview and that he did not see the stabbing in the second, but then told the court that he had seen Mr Hart deliver the fatal blow.

He said: “You cannot trust him. The very reason he was there to give a statement in September 2022 was the stabbing, and his position that he told the police was that he didn’t see it.

“He never described the stabbing with police or the prosecution. That means the first time anyone heard him say he saw someone stab him was in court. That is a sign the witness has recently fabricated evidence.

“He was and still is protecting himself. Far from redeemed.”

Mr Richardson added that Elijah Smith, who the Crown said wanted to clear his name and tell the truth, did not agree to talk to police until several days after the incident, even when he said he was aware of a rumour about him killing Mr Ford the day after the incident.

Mr Richardson told the jury that their delay allowed Elijah Smith and Jansen Smith to work out a matching story.

He said Elijah Smith also avoided giving details to police outside his narrow version of events that night.

Mr Richardson added: “The way he steadfastly refused to tell police how he got to Horseshoe Bay shows you someone who will tell you what he wants you to know and will shut down any probing towards something he doesn’t want you to see.”

Mr Richardson highlighted how both witnesses said they saw Mr Ford get stabbed twice, even though the autopsy showed he had been stabbed three times, as an example of their collusion.

He explained: “The chance that two separate people watching the same chaotic event would miss the third critical stab is possible, yes — but highly unlikely.

“If they saw the stabbing in its entirely, then there should’ve been a chance that one of them saw the third stab.”

Mr Richardson said this inaccuracy was a “fingerprint of their combined collusion” paired with “poor recollection”.

In contrast, he said there was no “shred of evidence” that Mr Hart or Ms Gibbons had lied.

He reminded the court that his client went to Horseshoe Bay because of a going-away party for a friend, and said that while he had got into a fight with Mr Ford, he did not stab him or even carry a knife.

Mr Richardson said: “When you put the evidence of Eze on one side of the scale and the evidence of two known liars on the other, you must, I suggest, rely on Eze’s.”

He told the jury that because the island struggled with violent crime, there might be a temptation to use the courtroom to deliver a stern message — but that finding the wrong man guilty would only create another victim.

Karim Nelson, for the Crown, continued his closing statement that morning by telling the jury that the defence sought to portray the victim and his friends as the aggressors.

He argued that while the defence said the stabbing came as a result of a dispute about the theft of a stolen motorcycle, Mr Hart had not mentioned a stolen bike in two defence statements.

He added that it made little sense for Mr Ford and his friends to bring attention to their riding stolen bikes by aggressively confronting partygoers.

He also argued that if Mr Hart and his friends were unarmed, as the defence claimed, it raised the question about how Jansen Smith suffered a stab wound to his arm.

Mr Nelson said: “Jansen was forthright. He told you off the bat that he had a knife.

“I suggest they want you to believe that Jansen stabbed himself.”

The prosecutor also noted that Mr Hart, Ms Gibbons and their friends all “scattered” from the scene of the stabbing soon after it took place, suggesting it was a sign of guilty conscience.

Mr Nelson added that despite seeing his cousin with a serious injury after a fight, Mr Hart said he did not reach out to anyone to find out what had happened that night.

He said: “That makes sense when you already know what happened and you don’t have to ask anybody. If you inflicted the stabs, you don’t need to ask anybody.”

Mr Nelson argued that Mr Hart had lied to escape justice, while Ms Gibbons had made up a story to protect her childhood friend.

He told the jury: “You have to decide who is telling the truth. You have to decide what are the honest mistakes and you have to decide who is trying to mislead.”

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