Allegations of Police corruption dominated legal arguments during yesterday's Court of Appeal proceedings where the prime culprit in the 2005 Cooper twin's murder sought to have his conviction quashed.

Kenneth Burgess was convicted of beating the 20-year-old twins to death with a metal baseball bat with his friend Dennis Alma Robinson aiding him in the murders.

The Crown alleged it was a revenge attack after Burgess accused the twins of robbing his father.

The pair then allegedly dumped the bodies 80 feet down Abbot's Cliff where Police discovered their skeletal remains one month later. Jahmal was struck in the head, arms and legs with the weapon, while Jahmil was punched in the face and then struck in the legs.

Courtenay Griffiths QC, representing Burgess, said the trial judge inappropriately suppressed submissions suggesting Police planted a bloodstained shirt at Burgess' Crown Hill Lane residence because they were desperate to charge him.

John Perry QC, representing Robinson, attempted to discount testimony from prosecution witnesses who recalled seeing Robinson holding the door shut before the vicious beatings at the murder scene (Crown Hill Lane).

However, Senior Crown counsel Paula Tyndale urged the three-man Court of Appeal panel not to overturn the men's convictions over minuscule allegations by the defence, citing the muscle of the Crown's case.

A Fubu shirt supposedly belonging to Burgess was found later by Police officers in a room inside his upper apartment, which contained blood from one of the twins on it, a forensic examination revealed.

Mr. Griffiths questioned why officers had sealed the shirt in an evidence bag – while back at the station – instead of on the scene. He said: "Police officers in Bermuda are indeed prone to malpractice just as Police all over the world are.

"Burgess says the item was planted and we submit there was force in the allegation. Why was it necessary to rebag this item when it was taken back to the Police station?

"Why was the bag not sealed on site so there's no chance of contamination?"

Appeal Court President Justice Edward Zacca interjected: "Are you suggesting that the shirt was not in the room at the time?" "I'm not in a position to say," Mr. Griffiths replied.

Mr. Griffiths said the trial judge unfairly interfered with the defence's testimony, by ruling that Mr. Griffiths' contention of Police "malpractice" was unsubstantiated.

Additionally, Mr. Griffiths found it suspicious that when Police conducted the search of Burgess' home, they "zoomed" in on this one shirt, which supposedly had a speck of blood on an intangible location.

They focused on this item among many other items of clothing, taking photos of it and eventually sending it off to Canada for forensic analysis along with a pair of sneakers.

"How can you convict a man of murder in the face of such wrongdoing?" Mr. Griffiths asked, while declaring that the DNA evidence was "tampered with".

"The Crown's allegations was that this took place on the ground floor… however, this Fubu shirt was found on the next floor up and by this time, the residence was searched several times.

"There was no evidence from eyewitnesses that Burgess was wearing a Fubu shirt during the alleged assault because he had on a black suit."

However, he conceded the possibility that Burgess could have changed his clothes.

The trial judge received heavy criticism for alleged prejudicial comments made in front of the jury, thwarting any chances of a fair trial, Mr. Griffiths contented.

The judge's remarks that Burgess must have known he was being charged with something serious, because of the numerous calls he made to lawyer's offices after he was arrested and at that point, with no mention of murder charges by Police.

Mr. Griffiths added: "It's not for a judge in this situation to plant an idea in the jury's head… the consensus was to drive a stake through the heart of the defence.

"The judge failed to hold the scales in a balanced way – it's to do with the judge's attitude."

Appeals Court Justice Gerald Nazareth appeared to agree with him, suggesting that if the trial judge was going to "mention some inferences" he ought to have mentioned all of them – for the jury's consumption.

Ms. Tyndale argued that the trial judge's comments were justified, as he had to protect the integrity and process of the trial.

She stated: "The judge only intervened to protect the integrity of proceedings… it is not a case of bias or imbalance to the defendant."

Mr. Perry slammed the damaging testimony of Whitter and Cann, who had said they remembered seeing a "light-skinned guy", referring to Robinson, staying behind to guard the door after leaving.

He argued that following questions by Mr. Griffiths on the credibility of Whitter, the only other witness, Gladwin Cann, was positioned outside the crime scene apartment and therefore would not have seen whether Robinson had assisted Burgess in a "clearing exercise" before the assault took place. The appeal is expected to finish today.