SEPTUAGENARIAN Kubert George, a former security guard of the Quick Action Security Service, a former soldier and a professional cook, who is on trial for the murder of his 46-year-old lover — Patricia Rose, called Pansy — will know his fate today when Justice Navindra Singh sums up the evidence to the jury before handing over the case to them for their consideration and verdict. Yesterday, stepdaughter of the accused, Phonda Rose, testified that although she was not present when the offence was committed, she was certain that George was the person who had committed the crime.

Justice Navindra Singh warned the jury to disregard what the witness had said, since by her admission she was not present, and that meant that someone must have given her that information, which is inadmissible.

The prosecution, led by Mrs. Konyo Thompson and Miss Dhanika Singh, is alleging that George stabbed Rose several times following a row over food and money on October 31, 2008. She died on May 8, 2009 from specific shock due to:
(a) Bialateral pneumonia
(b) Peritonitis and
(c) Cutaneous ulcers.

The prosecution is also relying on a caution statement which George had given to the police, wherein he admitted stabbing and juking Pansy with a knife.
But while admitting making a statement to the police, the accused, in a sworn statement from the witness box, said that while he could sign his name, he could neither read nor write; and that the police took advantage of that disadvantage by including lies with the truth in the statement he had given them.

He said that as a security guard, he had been attacked in the Albouystown area in the past; and because of that, he always walked with a knife to protect himself. He said he had told the police that he had the knife with him when he and his lover had a tussle that lasted for about 10 minutes; but he does not know how she sustained her injuries. He added “I did not bore her.”

George is represented by Attorney-at-law, Mr. Peter Hugh, who urged the mixed jury to give the accused the benefit of the doubt by returning a verdict of not guilty.

On the other hand, the prosecution told the jury that it was their task to give a verdict in keeping with the oath they had taken, and they would   be expected to return a verdict in accordance with the evidence led.  

The trial ends today.