The ringleader of a group of torturers was found guilty yesterday by a unanimous Supreme Court jury verdict of burning, maiming and disfiguring a man he kept trapped in a cellar for hours.

Antoine Herbert Anderson, 27, of St. Monica's Road, Pembroke, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and intending to burn, maim, disable or disfigure with the intent of doing grievous bodily harm to Dwayne Trott on January 4, 2001.

Anderson was remanded in custody over Christmas but must reappear for mention at the next arraignments session, on January 4, 2005, when a sentencing date will be set.

Over the course of Anderson's three-day trial, the court heard that the victim had been chopped with a machete, beaten with a two-by-four until it broke, had plastic bags burned over both legs, was beaten by his own brother, had dogs released on his feet and was threatened with having a battery wired to his body.

Dr. Wolfgang Spangenberger told the court that portions of Mr. Trott's stomach and duodenum (intestine) had to be removed and that three, separate surgeries had to be performed to save his life.

Mr. Trott had to spend three months in King Edward VII Memorial Hospital following the attack.

Despite the unanimous verdict yesterday, Anderson's father defended his son's torturous actions, saying the victim got what he deserved.

After the verdict, father Herbie Santucci asked media representatives: “How is a man guilty for doing something when the man deserved all he got?

“When you look at society, I feel that if Antoine can be guilty for something he has done is one thing, but when you look at the lies that man told it's something else.

“The only difference is that Antoine took action physically.”

Mr. Santucci claimed Mr. Trott brought the attack on himself by breaking into homes in the area. He said Police cannot be expected to take real action.

“Yes, he deserved it,” he said. “He broke into my home. You can't call down Police. The law don't do its job.”

Anderson's father said he did not think the torture was as extensive as Mr. Trott claimed.

“I don't believe there were hours of torture,” he said. “I think that man was lying in there. He is famous for lying... yet he can go into court.

“It was his word against Antoine's. There were also the medical records. The doctor is not going to lie. But hours and hours of torture, I do not believe. I have been in the (martial) arts all my life. It only takes seconds to do that kind of damage.”

Mr. Santucci said he had already seen a lawyer about appealing the conviction.

“I am proud to be his father,” he said. “There are always two sides to a coin.”

Anderson, who is also the nephew of former UBP Senator Rev. Leonard Santucci, was charged in relation to the attack with three other Pembroke men - Jakai Tyrone Hartford, 22, of Mission Lane, Shaki Allen Jay Minors, 21, of Cherry Hill and John O'Donald Fox, 34, also of Mission Lane. His three co-accused pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm charges on Monday.

They will appear with Anderson for a sentencing date in the new year.

It took less than two hours for the six-man, six woman jury to reach their verdict yesterday.

Anderson's family and friends in the gallery broke into tears on the pronouncement of the guilty verdict but Anderson himself expressed little emotion.

His defence lawyer Mark Pettingill asked for a social inquiry report to be prepared while Crown prosecutor Anthony Blackman requested a victim impact statement.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Carlisle Greaves indicated yesterday, that he expected the conviction would be appealed.

“In an unusual step, I order that prosecution need to secure photographic evidence of the complainant's scars as he now stands,” Mr. Justice Greaves said.

“There is likely to be an appeal for all four (co-accused). Therefore, I want the Court of Appeal to see what myself and the jury saw when the torture-victim took off his shirt and showed his scars. They will be able to understand my sentence.”

During his two-hour summation of the trial, Mr. Justice Greaves said yesterday: “This is a trial where the case of the defence depends wholly on the correctness of the identification of Anderson (by the torture-victim). Therefore, you must examine carefully the manner in which he was able to identify him.

How long did the torture-victim see him? How far away was he and what was the light in the cellar like?”

Mr. Justice Greaves said the prosecution's case alleged two things. First, that burning Mr. Trott's legs resulted in grievous bodily harm, and that he intended to burn him. If the jury believed this, he said, they could find him guilty on this limb alone.

Second, if they believed he acted in concert with others to harm Mr. Trott, they could also convict, he added.

“Once you are satisfied you can be sure that at the time the accused intended to do grievous bodily harm, and or counselled with others to do so, you may find him guilty,” he said.

But he warned the fact that three other men admitted to the crime, did not mean Anderson was guilty.

“They say they are guilty, that means he's guilty too? You can't do that,” Mr. Justice Greaves said.

The judge gave legal definitions of the charges - burn, maim, disable and disfigure - and asked whether they could be applied to Mr. Trott.

“You saw him...” he said.

He reminded the jury that Mr. Trott has been seeing a psychiatrist for the last three years because of the attack.

At the time of his arrival in hospital the torture victim “was alert and able to communicate,” he said.

He also reminded the jury the torture-victim said he snorted $50 worth of heroin - or “five to six hits” - on the morning of January 4, 2001.

Mr. Justice Greaves asked the jury to decide for themselves whether or Mr. Trott could correctly identify Anderson, who looked similar in appearance to admitted attacker Hartford, when on drugs and given a serious beating.

“You are the sole judges of the facts,” he said. “He gave a lot of detail. Does he sounds confused to you? It's a matter for you.”