Log In

Reset Password

Electronic tag ‘necessary for safety of murder suspect’

The lead detective in the disappearance of a missing woman insisted that the main suspect in her case was tracked in part for his own safety.

Jason Smith, who continued to give testimony in the murder trial of Chavelle Dillon-Burgess, said that his team was aware of “several threats” on social media against Kamal Worrell and saw it necessary to monitor his whereabouts.

He added that as Mr Worrell was the main suspect in the case, it was necessary to keep track of him.

Mr Smith said: “There was an island-wide search at the time, and that search still continues to this day.”

Mr Worrell has denied charges of murdering Ms Dillon-Burgess on an unknown date between April 10 and June 11, 2020.

He has also denied a charge of wounding Ms Dillon-Burgess and a charge of common assault related to an incident on June 1, 2019 and six counts of common assault related to an incident on November 14, 2018.

Mr Worrell, who is representing himself, yesterday continued his previous line of questioning Mr Smith about the circumstances of his arrest and the reasons why he was fitted with an electronic monitoring device.

He questioned if Mr Smith was aware of an incident when the strap of his electronic tag broke and he could not be traced.

Mr Smith replied that he was aware of the incident and that Mr Worrell was subsequently tracked down and charged with the offence of tampering with the tag — a charge for which he was later acquitted.

Mr Worrell also suggested that evidence of when Ms Dillon-Burgess was last seen was contradictory.

He mentioned that Twilia Ebbin-Wilson, who earlier gave testimony and spoke to police during the investigation, last saw Ms Dillon-Burgess a week before Good Friday.

But Mr Worrell suggested that another woman, Danielle Nesbitt, said that the three women were together the day before Good Friday.

Mr Smith replied that he did not know of anyone named Danielle Nesbitt.

The trial continues.

• 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