UPDATE: Wakima Lettsome sentenced to 20 years
Lettsome was previously found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty on a lesser charge of wounding with intent in November 2012.
See previous story posted November 10, 2012:
Wakima Lettsome found not guilty of attempted murder
- Found guilty on charge of wounding with intent
ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Minutes ago High Court jurors found Wakima Lettsome not guilty of attempted murder but guilty on a lesser charge of wounding with intent.
Lettsome was accused of the attempted murder of then 27-year-old Jonathan Colaire, allegedly committed on November 18, 2011 in the Crab Lot area also known as the Ghetto.
The jury returned an 8-1 verdict on both counts. Justice Albert Redhead has set November 30, 2012 as the date for sentencing.
Lettsome was represented by attorney Stephen Daniels.
“We say Mr Lettsome shot Mr Colaire and we say when he did so he intended to kill him,” said Senior Crown Counsel Valston Graham in his final statements earlier today. “If after having considered count one of the indictment and you are satisfied that he was trying to kill him then there is no need to consider the second,” he charged.
Graham told the jury that the case succeeds or falls on the evidence of Mr Jonathan Colaire and the remainder of witnesses were of no moment since they weren’t there. He told the jury that the issues to be resolved were whether someone indeed shot Colaire, whether he identified the shooter, whether [the jury] is satisfied that Lettsome is the shooter and also if he was indeed the shooter what his intention may have been.
The Senior Crown Counsel further suggested that the jury might have little difficulty in issues one and four as the evidence presented has largely been unchallenged and indicated that the learned Judge will instruct them on how to treat unchallenged evidence.
He also pre-emptively countered that the defence would say a shoddy investigation was conducted in the trial since the prosecution could present no gun or any spent shells from the scene of the crime, but despite this, the prosecutor said, “sometimes substance must rule over form.”
He noted that there was no need for a gun, spent shells or gun powder to satisfy that Colaire was shot and added that the fact that they were not even able to present the bullet that Colaire was shot with, did not render the case against Mr Lettsome fatal.
He noted that though the Police generally do a good job, on this occasion they needed to be called out on their failings. He said the failures of the police, shocking as they were, are all harmless in this instance as there was no dispute that he was shot.
The issue of identification, Graham said, was resolved when Lettsome was identified by the victim through the lighting provided by an electricity pole that Lettsome stood under for some 10 to 15 seconds as he allegedly shot the victim. Graham recalled that Colaire had taken the stand and said he allegedly saw Lettsome from “the face down to the waist”.
With regard to his sobriety on the evening, one witness, Dr Lewis, also said that the victim was well oriented after the shooting and could not be intoxicated. Graham said that his sobriety was therefore not in question “notwithstanding his social galavanting on that evening”.
Graham further said that the defendant attempted to distance himself from the name ‘Tall Boy’ completely as he had a powerful incentive to do so, more so especially since he ran the risk of the jury believing that Colaire had told the truth. The prosecutor suggested, “of all the people in all of Tortola, he chose one man who tried to help him to get a job [to blame for his shooting]”, a man who tried to put bread in his pocket.
“When a man accepts a name it tells you he identifies himself with that name,” Graham declared, adding that for 8 years, Lettsome had been known to all and sundry as ‘Tall boy’.
Attorney at law for the defendant, Stephen Daniels, sought to disprove to the jury that Wakima and Wakima Lettsome were the same person and said the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
He advised the jury that if they were not sure that the acts were committed by Wakima Lettsome then any doubts ought to fall in favour of the defendant.
Daniels stridently argued that during the beginning of the VC’s evidence on the stand he did not refer to the defendant by name and instead constantly identified him as “guy”, ‘someone’, ‘the person’, etc and this was not indicative of a person who knew someone for 8 years as the VC had claimed. He also argued that the diary presented as evidence by the prosecution had no mention of Wakima Lettsome either and the defendant could not be convicted on the evidence of his stature as it was obvious that he was tall.
21 Responses to “UPDATE: Wakima Lettsome sentenced to 20 years”