Jurors in the Cooper twins murder trial were yesterday urged to acquit Kenneth Burgess of double murder.

His lawyer Courtenay Griffiths QC said the Crown?s case that Burgess launched a violent baseball bat attack on Jahmal and Jahmil contained gaps and inconsistencies

He said phone records ? which he claimed prosecutors fought desperately to keep from the jury ? detailing calls between Burgess and his wife on the night of the alleged attack, helped ?blow the prosecution case away?.

And the barrister posed a series of questions to jurors, which he said supported Burgess? alibi he never went to his ground floor flat at Crown Hill Lane where the twins were allegedly beaten.

The court heard that, based on the Crown?s evidence, Burgess would not have had time to attack the twins, clean up the apartment and dispose of their bodies before daylight.

In his closing speech to the jury, Mr. Griffiths also asked if ?educated? and ?articulate? Burgess had planned to kill the twins, why he would have done so on his ?own doorstep?.

The trial heard witnesses say the twins were among a group driven from Burgess? Elliott Street gambling den to his Devonshire flat, by Burgess and co-accused Dennis Alma Robinson. But Mr. Griffiths said the fact the twins accepted a lift suggested they trusted Burgess. Therefore, he could have taken the twins anywhere if he intended murder.

The jury was also asked why, according to the Prosecution, Burgess would have taken four witnesses with him. These included the twins? friend Gladwyn Cann and their relative Devario Whitter, both of whom Mr. Griffiths said, could have intervened to stop any violence they claim they saw inflicted on the twins.

Mr. Griffiths also asked why the bodies would be dumped at Abbot?s Cliff, the remote location where the twins? badly decomposing remains were found one month after they vanished. He said the cliff was only a short walk from the defendant?s Cottage Hill Road home, and told the jury alternative dumping sites included the ocean.

DNA tests showed Jahmal?s blood on Burgess? Tissot watch, and on a Fubu sports shirt found in the flat above the lower apartment at Crown Hill Lane.

But Mr. Griffiths asked why Burgess did not get rid of the watch or wash it. And he pointed to a gambling den fight between Burgess and one of the twins, about a year before March 2005, as providing the chance for blood to have lodged in watch strap links.

Burgess told the court he had either given away the Fubu shirt, or had bagged up to be given away. And Mr. Griffiths yesterday maintained it had been ?planted? by Police.

He said the blood stain was found on a small patch inside the garment, not visible from the outside. He asked why about eight items of clothing were seized from the upper apartment, yet the Fubu top was the only one photographed.

?How could they have known in advance of the forensic examination, that this was so important it had to be photographed? Why so much concentration on just that one item of clothing??

The court also heard the reliability of Prosecution eyewitnesses Mr. Cann and Mr. Whitter, called into question. Mr. Griffiths said there were ?blatant inconsistencies? in both witness? accounts and called on the jury to dismiss both.

The lawyer said their previous convictions suggested they were not powerless to intervene and stop the attack they said they saw taking place. Like the twins, he said they were used to the ?rules of the street?. And he questioned why, if they did not want to go to the Police, they did not arm themselves and gather fellow gang members to track down Burgess, if he had attacked their friends, the twins.

Instead, the court heard, Mr. Cann had to be taken to the Police station by the twins? mother and her boyfriend, while Mr. Whitter was arrested on suspicion of GBH against the twins on March 16.

On previous convictions of both witnesses and the twins, he stated: ?We are not talking about about choirboys, we are talking about boys that live on the street.?

On the phone records, Mr. Griffiths said Mr. Whitter told the court he never saw Burgess use a cell phone during the alleged attack. But the lawyer said records showed a string of calls to Burgess? cell between 4.28 and after 5 a.m. ? ?smack bang? in the middle of the bloody events the witness claimed took place at Crown Hill Lane.

Mr. Griffiths also said the Crown had not called a single piece of evidence to prove that his client disposed of the twins? bodies in the early hours of March 13, 2005. He also said the Crown had never dealt with the question of how the bodies ended up 80 feet down Abbot?s Cliff, and why they had no injuries consistent with being dropped from a distance.

Mr. Griffiths told the jury that even if they only thought Burgess? alibi, that he was gambling most of the night in question and did not go to the lower apartment, might be right they still had to acquit him.

?Before you convict this man of this offence you would have to dismiss his alibi as a fabrication and fraud, something he has dreamt up to deceive you and disguise his guilt,? he told the court.

The lawyer added that jurors would also have to be sure witnesses Mr. Cann and Mr. Whitter, and several Police officers, had not lied.

Earlier, Mr. Griffiths had accused Police of getting a statement from Burgess on the night of March 13 under false pretences.

Commenting on the emotion surrounding the trial and the vast amount of publicity the case has generated, he warned the jury to judge it on facts alone and not on pre-conceived opinions.

He also said the case was not a ?beauty contest? and that the fact Burgess gambled instead of going to hospital with his wife and sick son was irrelevant.