A man accused of an attack which left a Smith’s man unconscious with a fractured skull has declined to speak out in his own defence.But defence lawyer Marc Daniels said even with video evidence, the case put forward by prosecutors was merely speculative.Khyri Smith-Williams, 21, from Sandys, has denied a charge of wounding 30-year-old Nathaniel Ingham with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on December 6.In Supreme Court yesterday prosecutors closed their case. Mr Smith-Williams declined to speak in his own defence or call any witnesses.The court had heard that Mr Ingham and a friend, Kwame Caisey, went to the area of Woody’s Bar in Sandys on Mr Caisey’s boat to celebrate a friend’s birthday. Both men had been drinking throughout the evening.Mr Caisey admitted he had difficulty remembering the events of the evening, but after being shown CCTV footage from the bar on that evening he recalled turning around to find Mr Ingham laying unconscious on the ground.He assumed he had passed out due to alcohol consumption, but while carrying Mr Ingham to his boat he realised his friend was bleeding and called for an ambulance.Mr Ingham suffered a fractured skull and a broken nose in the incident, and was airlifted off the Island for emergency treatment after a CT scan revealed inter-cranial bleeding.CCTV footage from 12.12am that night appears to show a person, who prosecutors claim is Mr Smith-Williams, approach Mr Ingham and make a motion with his right hand, at which point Mr Ingham appears to fall.Making her closing statement, prosecutor Larissa Burgess said Mr Smith-Williams struck Mr Ingham with “significant force”, causing serious injury to the victim.She also noted the testimony of Teresha Wolffe, who was on the porch of the bar on the evening of the incident. Ms Wolffe said that she heard Mr Smith-Williams say he had “knocked this drunk fool out”.Ms Burgess urged the jury to re-watch the CCTV footage and follow the movements of people involved in the alleged assault, particularly Mr Smith-Williams.“Follow the footage,” she said. “Follow the timings on the footage. Go through that task of going from camera to camera to camera so you are satisfied with what we are saying.“We say it was the defendant who marched up without breaking his stride. With his right hand he came around, the same right hand he wiped off when he came into camera three. The same person who was boasting when he came back onto the porch.”Defence lawyer Mr Daniels, representing Mr Smith-Williams, said that while the Crown’s version of events seemed plausible, it was only one of the possible explanations.He said that even if the jury comes to the conclusion that the man identified by prosecutors as the defendant is Mr Smith-Williams, the footage does not clearly show any blow being delivered.And even if the jury believes a blow was delivered, Mr Daniels said it didn’t mean that the blow had caused Mr Ingham his injuries, suggesting that the injury could have been caused by a hit from someone else.“The Crown knows that this is a weak case, even though they say they have CCTV footage,” he said. “The Crown’s case is all a theory as to what happened. It’s not far fetched, but what you have to ask yourself is which theory makes more sense? Is there another theory not in the mix?”Mr Daniels also said the Crown had not put forward any motivation as to why Mr Smith-Williams would attack Mr Ingham.The trial will continue on Monday.Due to the ongoing legal proceedings in this case, The Royal Gazette is unable to allow comments on this story. To fully understand the terms of service governing comments on this site, please follow the link below.