Bitcoin (BTC) absences lead to accusations of death threats in private message case

The lawyer for a 21-year-old man accused of threatening to kill Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis made a no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case. The Crown had closed its case after a BTC representative failed to appear to give testimony. Police officers testified that the defendant called the Central Police Station demanding the release of Lincoln Bain after a protest outside Baha Mar and allegedly threatened the Prime Minister’s life if his demands were not met.

The prosecutor claimed that the defendant confessed to making threats against the Prime Minister during his official police interview, stating that someone would go after Prime Minister Davis if Bain was not released. The defendant allegedly made this confession without coercion. However, the defense argued that the evidence against their client was “tenuous,” stating that the Prime Minister had not testified that the alleged call put him in fear.

The defense further argued that there was no evidence that the call made the Prime Minister fear for his life, and that the defendant had mentioned in the police interview that he did not intend to instill fear in Mr. Davis or direct harm towards him. The defense lawyer made a no-case submission, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against their client. After the lawyer’s submission, Magistrate Reckley mentioned that during the police interview, Roberts allegedly stated that if Mr. Bain was not released, the Prime Minister would die.

The matter was adjourned to April 3, allowing time for both the prosecution and defense to prepare their final arguments. The case revolves around the alleged threats made by the defendant against Prime Minister Davis if his demands for the release of another individual were not met. The defense maintains that the evidence presented against their client is weak and lacks credibility.

As the case continues, the prosecution will need to provide strong evidence to support their claims that the defendant threatened to kill the Prime Minister. The defense will likely continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient and that the defendant did not intend to harm the Prime Minister. The outcome of the case will depend on the strength of the evidence presented by both sides and how the court determines the credibility of the witness testimonies and police interviews.