evidence as "circumstantial'' and "speculative'' yesterday as closing arguments were heard in the Supreme Court robbery trial of Roger Eugene Lightbourne.

"There is a lot of doubt in this case,'' Mr. Warner said in his final remarks to the jury. "This case is riddled with inconsistencies and misidentifications.'' Lightbourne, who has pleaded not guilty to robbing Roosters restaurant of its cash register and $700 last January, has testified that the only crime he was guilty of on the morning in question was selling cocaine.

Lightbourne has told the court he was hiding his stash in a nearby churchyard when Police arrested him for the robbery. The stash has never been found.

Yesterday, Mr. Warner reminded the jurors that Lightbourne's self-confessed drug dealings should not be a consideration when they made their decision.

"You cannot be biased in your assessment of the evidence because Roger Lightbourne was selling drugs on Princess Street,'' he told them. "You cannot make the quantum leap that because he was selling drugs he must be put in jail.'' Added Mr. Warner: "(Lightbourne) has admitted that selling drugs is just as reprehensible as robbery, but he is not charged with selling drugs. He can only be convicted of that with which he was charged.'' At the same time as he was asking the jury to overlook Lightbourne's illegal activity, however, Mr. Warner also made an issue of the alleged disrepute of many of the prosecution's witnesses.

"We all fall short of the glory of God,'' Mr. Warner said, "but the prosecution has brought forth three witnesses whose character and credibility (are suspect).

"He has brought,'' the defence lawyer said, "(taxi driver) Mr. (Eliston) Bradshaw, who was a thief 10 years ago and continues to be a drug pusher. He has brought Diane Young, who -- not to mention the prostitution -- admitted to being on drugs that night. And he has brought Miss (Donna) Darrell -- the same thing, a lady of the night.

"These people, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are known for lying.'' Mostly, however, Mr. Warner devoted his arguments to the "circumstantial'' nature of the Crown's evidence.

The lawyer cited an inconclusive bootprint, conflicting testimony regarding the robber's clothing and the failure of arresting officer P.c. Colin Paynter to say in his statement that he actually saw Lightbourne at the scene of the crime as indicative of the Crown's failure to make a firm link between the accused and the robbery.

"You must feel sure (of Lightbourne's guilt),'' he told the jurors. "On the salient and important ingredients of the case, there is no evidence to make you feel sure.'' Crown Counsel Mr. Peter DeJulio, meanwhile, provided the jury with a brief summation of his case yesterday afternoon.

He has argued during the course of the trial that Lightbourne and a youth named Kimani Fubler had robbed the store as a team and escaped on a bike to Dundonald Street.

Mr. DeJulio has also suggested that Fubler, who signed a statement that named Lightbourne as his accomplice, was coerced by the accused into changing his story.

Fubler testified this week that Police harassed him into signing the statement. He said a man who is nicknamed Smalls was his actual partner. On Monday the Hon. Mr. Justice Meerabux will direct the jury on points of law.