…3 family members set to testifyMarlon Marion Freeman will on Monday testify and call three other witnesses as his High Court trial draws to a close. This was announced by his lawyer, Folio Richards, who informed the presiding judge, Justice James Bovell-Drakes, late last week that the defendant’s relatives: Wendy, Kellon and Sylvester Freeman, will be called to support his case.It was also disclosed to the court that the accused will also lead his own defence before the 12-member jury. Richards has also requested an adjournment, which was granted by Justice Bovell-Drakes.Marlon FreemanThis announcement in the weeks-long trial follows the Prosecution’s closing its case last week on the contention that it has called enough witnesses to the stand.Freeman is accused of murdering miner Timothy Adams at Turtle Creek, Five Star Backdam, North West District (NWD) on December 22, 2013. The State is alleging that Freeman killed Adams before stealing his gold, following a confrontation between the two; but Freeman has maintained his innocence.Government Pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh last Monday testified to having conducted the post-mortem examination on Adams, who was killed while en route to a mining camp. Dr Singh related seeing an abrasion to the left side of Adams’s face, a cut to the foot, and a cut to the top and back of the head. He gave the cause of death as haemorrhage and shock, compounded by blunt force trauma to the head.Police Detective Corporal Bryan James had testified earlier in the trial that while giving the caution statement that he had penned in relation to the accused, Freeman had admitted that he might have killed Adams, because he thought the miner was going to pull a gun after he had confronted him over money that was owed to him. Bryan, who administered the caution statement on December 25, 2013 in the presence of then Police Constable Zane Williams, had indicated that Freeman had said he first went to work with his uncle at Five Star Backdam, but after they “got wrong”, he went to work at Gavin Blacks’ mining camp.According to the caution statement, Freeman, a pork-knocker, was promised $5000 a day by Blacks, but after three weeks had passed, he was paid only $30,000. He had enquired from Blacks about his money, and sometime after lunch on the day in question, he bought a “piece of weed” and then saw Adams coming to the camp about 15 minutes later.According to the caution statement, Freeman also enquired of Adams about his money, saying: “Big man, wam to me money?”“I see he go to he waist, and I didn’t know if he had a gun or wah, but I had a spoon which I sharpen and I just jook he by he neck and he fall down. After I see he ain’t moving, I get nervous,” the defendant reportedly said. He then allegedly left the scene.He also claimed that the gold he later gave a female was not taken from the deceased man, but it was gold that he had in his possession. The case continues March 5.
Furious West Ham boss Slaven Bilic criticised referee Bobby Madley for awarding Chelsea an 88th-minute penalty that cost his side victory at Stamford Bridge.Blues substitute Ruben Loftus-Cheek was clipped by Michail Antonio, allowing Cesc Fabregas to score an equaliser, but replays appeared to indicate the first contact was made outside the box.Bilic admitted he was “gutted” that goals from Manuel Lanzini and Andy Carroll eventually secured just one point, rather than three.He said: “It was not close to the line, it was way out. It’s simply not a penalty. He wasn’t sliding, so it shouldn’t be difficult for the referee to see.“To concede a goal that late is gutting, no matter how you concede it. But to concede it from a penalty that wasn’t a penalty is unacceptable.“I don’t like to moan or find excuses because the way the boys played we have to be really proud.”West Ham would have gone above Manchester City and into fourth with a win but Bilic believes their display at the Bridge proved they are worthy challengers for a Champions League spot.He said: “On the one hand it’s great when your team is gutted when you play really good at Stamford Bridge, the home of the champions. It shows we are moving in a really good direction.“We could have two points more, we could go over Man City, put the pressure on them. We deserved it.”See also:Hiddink explains Chelsea’s final substitutionChelsea v West Ham player ratingsFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
How is the debate over evolution in Kansas going? It depends on whom you ask. MSNBC News focused on personal attacks between board members (see also the Lexington Herald-Leader). The Discovery Institute, by contrast, focused on the content of the new proposed standards that allows a “common-sense” approach for teaching all the science about evolution, including the problems with Darwin’s theory.MSNBC’s title suggests that both sides are bickering, claiming “School board members hurl insults at each other.” But if you look into the article, the only ones hurling insults are the evolutionists; the other side is just putting up their shields. All Connie Morris said was, after being insulted, “Had you attended, you would have been informed. You would be sitting here as informed individuals and not arrogantly calling us dupes.” The article claims Morris mentioned the moderates by name in print, but does not say she insulted them like the Darwinists did; she only derided evolution itself, the article says. The evolutionists, though, called the conservatives “dupes” of intelligent design advocates and their decision based on “absolute and total fraud.” Judge for yourself which side is acting with civility and responsibility. The majority conservatives had invited the pro-evolution moderates to come to the hearings, but they wouldn’t. The Darwin Party could have contributed to the discussion, but chose to sit and pout. If they had been listening, they would realize that the Board is taking no position on intelligent design. The new standards are very mild. They do not call for teaching creation or intelligent design, but only for permitting critical thinking about evolution such that it is treated like any other scientific theory, not like a sacred cow. No advocates of a scientific theory would worry about that unless their position was weak.(Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0