body{-webkit-animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both;-moz-animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both;-ms-animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both;animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both}@-webkit-keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}}@-moz-keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}}@-ms-keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}}@-o-keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}}@keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}}body{-webkit-animation:none;-moz-animation:none;-ms-animation:none;animation:none}
Categories: Court

It wasn’t me, says Jordan

Seph Nico Jordan, who is accused of endangering the life of a schoolgirl more than four years ago, today declared he was “not the person that commit this offence”.

Jordan, who was 22 years old at the time, is charged with unlawfully and maliciously engaging in conduct on January 28, 2013, namely shooting at another person, which placed then 14-year-old Tianna Brathwaite in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In his closing remarks to the No. 2 Supreme Court, he sought to discredit the testimonies given by several of the Crown’s witnesses, including the police and Brathwaite.

He maintained that he was not “here to speak ill” of Brathwaite, but she was “sadly mistaken” about what took place on Blenheim pasture, The Ivy, St Michael, because it “was not me, Seph Nico Jordan, that was involved”.

He also pointed out what he considered were a number of inconsistencies in Brathwaite’s testimony, including what he was allegedly wearing and the distance between her and two men on the day.

Jordan also took issue with the charge before the court.

He said the offence read: “. . . conduct endangering life or safety contrary to Section 19 of the Offences Against The Person Act, that Seph Nico Jordan on January 28, 2013 in the parish of St Michael, namely shot at a person which placed Tiana Brathwaite in danger of death or serious bodily harm”.

Jordan charged that statement did not support the particulars of the offence, as “the indictment does not purport the instrument used against the complainant” which placed her in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

“. . . So the question is, what did I allegedly have or use which placed Tianna Brathwaite in danger? I would allegedly have to use a firearm . . . and I am not charged for use of a firearm,” he pointed out.

High Court judge Madam Justice Michelle Weekes is expected to deliver her summation in the case, which is being prosecuted by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Donna Babb-Agard, on Wednesday.

The nine-member jury will then deliberate to reach a verdict.

admin

Share
Published by
admin

Recent Posts

The Cliff Beach Club Serves Deliciousness Safely

The Cliff Beach Club has reopened for in-house dining for the first time in three…

1 year ago

Elysium- Bliss Personified

Elysium means ‘a place of state or bliss’ and it’s the perfect name for this…

1 year ago
Advertisements

Designing For Love

When it comes to wedding planning and décor, Emma Corrie takes the expression, “love is…

1 year ago

How To Use All The Food In Your Refrigerator To Prevent Waste

Clever ways to use up random items such as vegetables, fruit and leftovers in the…

1 year ago

Separate But Not Equal: Racial Bias In Salon Culture

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer at tellus quis diam scelerisque tincidunt…

1 year ago

The Best Movies To Watch On Netflix In May 2020

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer at tellus quis diam scelerisque tincidunt…

1 year ago

We use our own and third party cookies to improve your experience and our services, and to analyse the use of our website. If you continue to browse we take that to mean that you accept their use.