Murder accused Julian Washington’s testimony in the Supreme Court was an attempt to “pull the wool over your eyes”, a jury heard as the trial neared its close.

But the evidence against the 24-year-old, charged with a double shooting, was dismissed as “vague, weak and irrelevant” — and the police investigation of Mr Washington faulted as “poor”.

Defence lawyer Larry Mussenden told the court that police had been in such a hurry to prepare their file against his client that they hadn’t bothered collecting solid evidence to back their case.

Mr Washington, of Grace Lane, Pembroke, is on trial for the premeditated murder of Stefan Burgess at a residence on The Glebe Road, Pembroke.

The court has heard that a black-clothed gunman invaded a birthday gathering on the evening of January 8, 2012, shooting Mr Burgess dead and wounding Devano Bremer.

The accused, who was arrested the following morning, is also accused of attempting to murder Mr Bremer — as well as handling a gun and ammunition.

Summing up the case for the prosecution, Crown counsel Garrett Byrne told the jury: “This man Washington has left a man dead, nearly left a second man dead, and a young child without a father.”

Mr Washington has steadfastly maintained his innocence, answering each of the charge against him with “absolutely, 100 percent not guilty” at the start of trial.

Taking the stand for the defence, Mr Washington told the court he’d asked a friend to pick him up a meal from the Yardie Kitchen restaurant on The Glebe Road before heading down with a group for drinks at the Mid-Atlantic Boat Club, where they learned of the shooting around 9pm.

But Mr Byrne told the court that Mr Washington’s story was a lie.

“Why is he trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Because he knows he has to come up with something to deflect you from the fact that at 9pm he was at no. 60 Glebe Road committing these crimes.”

The court has heard that the Yardie Kitchen closed at 8pm on the night of the shooting, which was a Sunday. Mr Washington said his friend had gone to collect food from there at 8.15pm to 8.30pm.

“Maybe he did go to the Boat Club at some stage that night,” Mr Byrne said. “Maybe he needed to drink to summon some courage.”

Mr Washington’s only alibi from the night, Ebony Jones, took the stand this week just a few days after coming forward with her statement, Mr Byrne added.

“Beware a witness who suddenly appears out of nowhere,” he said.

“This isn’t at the eleventh hour. It’s minutes to midnight, and she’s giving her recollection of something that occurred over two-and-a-half years ago.”

Of the others with whom Mr Washington said he’d spent the evening, the prosecutor asked: “Where’s everyone else?”

DNA evidence from bullet casings at the scene have shown Mr Washington to be a likely contributor to several of the cartridges, and the jury has heard forensic evidence that particles suggestive of gunshot residue, or GSR, were lifted from the accused man’s clothing.

And pictures retrieved from Mr Washington’s phone include an image stating “Guns don’t kill people — I do”, Mr Byrne added.

However, Mr Mussenden next told the jury that it was common for people to collect “all sorts of pictures” on their phones, including some that might appear offensive.

“They do not make the case,” the defence lawyer said.

All the purported GSR particles were composed of one- or two-component particles, with none of the three-part particles that can definitively be called GSR, he said.

“What happened to all those threes?” he asked. “Where did they go?”

Mr Washington has maintained that he helped neighbours to melt down pieces of scrap metal in the fashioning of fishing weights, and similar particles were found on other clothing seized from the accused.

The defence’s own forensics report by UK expert Angela Shaw said that the absence of three-component particles meant there wasn’t enough to say it definitely came from a gunshot.

And the DNA evidence showed several profiles on different casings, including some that contained none at all from the defendant, he said.

Mr Mussenden praised Ms Jones as a “young, helpful, truthful and respectful” witness who hadn’t been pressured into appearing for the defence.

The Crown’s case is that Mr Washington attacked the house that night because of a fight between the victim, Mr Burgess, and one of his friends.

Mr Mussenden dismissed it as “speculation, speculation, speculation”, asking the jury: “Where is the beef, when it comes to the motive?”

The two-week case is likely to go before the jury for a possible verdict on Monday.