Centennial Towers Fallout: A Fabricated Loaded Gun. Star Witness Inconsistencies. Two Potential, Additional Witnesses Seen On CCTV Nowhere To Be Found By Police.

By Alric Lindsay

The prosecution’s case in the Centennial Towers attempted murder trial suffered another dent in its structure in the Grand Court today, November 3, 2026.  A senior investigator conceded under oath that the police openly pushed aside the wildly conflicting statements of their own star immunity witness, choosing instead to anchor their entire case to CCTV video feeds.

Appearing before Hon. Justice Emma Peters, lead investigator Detective Inspector Dave Barnett was challenged by prominent defence advocates Rhiannon Sara Crimmins KC, Brendon Kelly KC, and George Carter-Stephenson KC. The day’s proceedings concluded with a focused re-examination by Crown Counsel Vickers KC. The legal sparring centred entirely around the handling of accomplice-turned-prosecution witness Jimmal Facey, who secured absolute immunity from attempted murder charges in exchange for testifying against his former associates.

Case Background: The Centennial Towers Ambush

To provide context for readers, this high-profile trial stems from a coordinated firearm ambush executed in the early hours of February 22, 2025, at the Centennial Towers commercial complex in West Bay. The Crown alleges that a group of men arrived at the plaza in multiple vehicles to carry out a pre-planned shooting, which left the parking lot in front of Subway restaurant riddled with gunfire. Prosecutors originally identified several men in connection with the targeted hit; however, Jimmal Facey subsequently turned King’s Evidence, leaving five co-defendants to face the jury: Jamie Ebanks, Jared Johnson (aka “Bubbles”), Austin Kempton Crawford and Dabian Ebanks. The prosecution’s case relies heavily on Facey’s statements to link these men to the weapons, vehicles, and planning of the shooting.

The Structural Shift: “I Did Not Rely on Facey’s Account”

The defining theme of today’s evidence was a striking double-admission from the senior investigator, who repeatedly distance himself from Facey’s credibility. Despite Facey being the central pillar of the Crown’s narrative, the detective flatly told the jury he did not rely on Facey’s word to build the case file.

When grilled by George Carter-Stephenson KC on whether his primary duty as an investigator required him to check if their star asset was actively fabricating tales to protect his own skin, DI Barnett delivered a devastating line to the jury: “I did not rely on Facey’s account. My investigation relied on the facts I could prove.”  

The defence continued to grill DI Barnett continuously, challenging the credibility of the Crown’s star witness.  This was particularly the case when DI Barnett appeared to fail to confront Facey with gross physical discrepancies during his January interviews. “I did not rely on Mr Facey’s account as my evidence,” DI Barnett stated flatly. “My evidence is what CCTV showed me.”

Defence Exposes Shifting Statements and “Rehearsed” Evidentiary Gaps

The reason for the detective’s stark refusal to back his own witness became clear as the defence team methodically exposed an array of massive structural contradictions within Facey’s consecutive police statements:

1. The Fabricated Loaded Gun: Brendon Kelly KC proved that during a critical January 13, 2026, interview, Facey suddenly introduced the highly damaging detail that a firearm used in the ambush was loaded—a claim completely absent from his initial statements to the police. When asked whether such a massive difference in details was insignificant to the police, DI Barnett said: “All depends on how he was interviewed. I put that question to him… so he gave that response.”
2. Gun Origins (The “Matrix”):  The defence highlighted Facey’s changing narrative about where the guns came from.  The defence noted that Facey came up with a story all of a sudden that the guns came from Jamie Ebanks.  When pressed on whether the police would have had no clue about the origin of the firearms without Facey’s version of events, DI Wright initially responded, saying, “We never tried to attribute firearms to anybody.” DI Wright held onto his position that he was focused on the shooting investigation, not necessarily on the 100% truthfulness of Facey’s account.
3. The Contradicted Vehicle Occupants: In his early interviews, Facey confidently asserted that three people left Kelly’s Bar in a Honda Odyssey and remained inside the vehicle when it arrived on Boggy Sand Road. CCTV footage demolished this claim. When asked why he failed to challenge Facey on this blatant falsehood, DI Barnett admitted he purposefully allowed Facey to do a “free recall,” challenging Facey on “aspects of the interview,” but not specifying what challenges he raised with Facey. 
4. The LEG vs VEST Conflict: The court heard that Facey claimed he had been shot in the leg during the chaotic exchange. However, DI Barnett’s own evidence directly contradicted the witness, clarifying that Facey was struck in his body armour vest rather than his foot or leg.
5. The Changing Head Coverings: Carter-Stephenson KC proved that Facey completely changed his description of the head coverings allegedly worn by co-defendant Jared Johnson (“Bubbles”). DI Barnett admitted under pressure that his subsequent questions were designed strictly to match what was visible on the CCTV frames rather than testing Facey’s prior inconsistent statements, prompting the defence to openly accuse the police of “rehearsing” the witness.

Breaching Police Standing Orders and Unlogged Inconsistencies

The legal temperature rose further when the defence exposed that the RCIPS had failed to formally log in notebooks or track Facey’s web of falsehoods. Carter-Stephenson KC read aloud from the official Police Standing Orders, reminding the detective of his strict legal mandate to meticulously document and present facts both in favour of and against an accused person.

When asked why Facey’s long list of proven inconsistencies was never compiled into a formal summary for the prosecuting authorities, DI Barnett attempted to shift accountability to the Crown lawyers: “I am sure the prosecution went through with a fine-tooth comb.”

He insisted his team never actively misled the DPP, pointing to an array of unrecorded conversations. However, when pushed to show where these massive witness shifts were logged during a crucial June 12, 2025, planning session, DI Barnett dropped a final footnote: “It wasn’t written in my notes… so I wouldn’t have a list of inconsistencies.” He further admitted he held  face-to-face meetings with Facey regarding a letter but kept absolutely no record of the duration or contents of those contacts.

Crimmins KC Launches Scathing Attack on Star Witness

Earlier in the day, Rhiannon Sara Crimmins KC targeted the internal police protocols used to initially package Facey. She firmly established that Facey was far from an innocent bystander caught up in unexpected chaos, painting him instead as a dangerous, convicted armed robber who travelled to West Bay on February 22 with the explicit intent to kill someone.

When pushed on why the RCIPS would build a flagship attempted murder prosecution around the word of an active participant with a violent record, DI Barnett offered a stark response: “Mr Facey’s history is not my concern.”

Crimmins KC revealed that external psychological assessments officially described Facey as an individual who was described as self-centred, manipulative, indifferent to other people, and lacking empathy.   DI Barnett’s response: “I did not know that.”

Crimmins KC then demanded to know why investigators failed to flag in the March 2 interview that Facey had laid out an explicit set of demands to be flown off the island and he didn’t want to rot in hell. DI Barnett deflected, arguing that Facey’s full unedited video interviews were handed to the Crown, leaving the DPP to evaluate the witness’s ultimatums.

Crown Re-Examination Uncovers Mystery ID Envelope Note

During the late afternoon re-examination by Crown Counsel Vickers KC, prosecutors worked to stabilise the digital evidence layout. Reviewing surveillance tapes from outside Kelly’s Bar, DI Barnett said he identified co-defendant Austin Kempton Crawford moving across the top of the video feed before exiting the camera frame.

However, a new mystery emerged when Vickers KC produced two orange identification parade envelopes containing the photographic sheets shown to Facey during his fast-tracked lineup. Under instruction from the prosecution, DI Barnett peeled back a piece of sticky tape attached to the exhibit.

Reading the concealed note aloud to the quiet courtroom, DI Barnett revealed it read: “DI Wright | Jared Johnson.”

The defence had previously suggested that senior officers had manipulated the identification parade by subtly pointing out co-defendant Jared Johnson, known colloquially as “Bubbles,” to Facey before he made his selection. DI Barnett firmly denied any knowledge of the note’s existence during the parade, stating: “No Sir… If I saw that, I would have reported it.”

The trial continues on November 4 before Hon. Justice Emma Peters.

L-R: Ed Vickers KC, Brendon Kelly KC, Rhiannon Sara Crimmins KC, and George Carter-Stephenson KC

Note to readers

Quotations and testimonies featured in this report are transcribed from contemporaneous, handwritten notes taken during live court proceedings. While every effort is made to ensure absolute accuracy, readers should note that these accounts are subject to minor human error or omission due to the real-time nature of live courtroom reporting and the absence of an official electronic transcript at the time of publication.