Prosecution Says Mark Kennedy Bush Made Threats To 911 Operator Intending That The 911 Operator Believe That A Woman Would Be Harmed With Machete
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Closing arguments were made to the jury by the prosecution and defence counsels on Friday, January 31, 2025, in the case of Mark Kennedy Bush. He is accused of making threats to a 911 operator, intending that the operator believe he would use a machete to cause harm to Chantelle Bush.
The prosecution’s case and the 911 call
Setting out its case against Mark Kennedy Bush, the prosecution replayed the 911 call made by him:
911: “911, Where’s your emergency?
Mark: “My name is Mark Kennedy Bush. Cayman’s baddest Blackbeard pirate. I’m 51 years old and I have Chantelle Bush with me… unnah better hurry up and come cos’ I don’t play… Chantelle Bush, I’m going to bleed her pu$$yclot out this morning. Time has come.”
911: “Hello”
Mark: “Yeah this the lunatic again… Make sure you record this… I am going to fu$k her with my machete, not my co%k.”
The prosecution explained to the jury that the entire case hinges on this 911 phone call.
The prosecution asked the jury to focus on the words used by Mark Kennedy Bush, which “Describe the intent of Mr. Bush’s voice and demeanour when speaking to 911 operator.”
The prosecution suggested to the jury that Mark Kennedy Bush intended the 911 operator to take him seriously and believe that the threat would be carried out against Chantelle Bush. The prosecution emphasized that because the 911 operator believed this, he contacted the inspector in charge of the police station and reported it to him.
It was suggested to the jury that Mark Kennedy Bush made up a story during the trial that Chantelle Bush assaulted him.
The prosecution explained that, according to Mark Kennedy Bush, Chantelle Bush “thumped him in the face, used a broom and hit him across the jaw, hit him on the other jaw and nose, which then started bleeding.”
The prosecution highlighted, however, that Mark Kennedy Bush did not mention to the 911 operator that he was assaulted. He also failed to state this when arrested and interviewed by the police. Since Mark Kennedy Bush had so many opportunities to report the assault but did not do so, the prosecution suggested that there was no assault against him.
The prosecution concluded:
It is unbelievable that only now does the defendant seek to use this excuse that he was the victim.
The prosecution say that it is but a story to deflect his abusive and threatening conduct towards Chantelle through the 911 operator.
Closing arguments from the defence counsel
Responding to the prosecution’s closing arguments, the defence counsel asked the jury to consider whether the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defence counsel suggested that instead of the prosecution doing this, the prosecution used words to pull at the “heartstrings” of members of the jury.
The defence counsel reiterated that the allegation is that Mark Kennedy Bush made a threat to another person, that person being the 911 operator, intending that the 911 operator would fear the threat would be carried out, namely to cause harm to Chantelle Bush.
The defence counsel highlighted that, instead of focusing on this allegation, the prosecution took the jury down a different road by suggesting other things.
For example, the defence counsel said that the prosecution kept referring to Chantelle Bush as the victim when, in fact, the offence made out by the prosecution is that the threat was made to the 911 operator, intending him to believe that an offence would be committed. The defence counsel suggested to the jury that it was essential to make this distinction because of how the prosecution laid out the charge.
Driving the point home to the jury, the defence counsel explained that the 911 operator in this case is a 28-year veteran. As such, he received calls like this frequently and was, therefore, not distressed by the call.
Defence counsel added:
He was completely detached from this call. There is no evidence he was distressed and no mention that he believed these threats would be carried out.
Defence counsel highlighted that the fact the 911 operator did not telephone his inspector until seven hours later demonstrated that the 911 operator did not perceive the incident with any degree of emergency.
The defence counsel added that, although profanities were used on the call, the jury should not be distracted by this as Mark Kennedy Bush is not on trial for profanities. He is on trial for what he allegedly caused the 911 operator to believe.
The defence counsel suggested that the reason Mark Kennedy Bush called 911 was because he was assaulted and under attack. Concerning this, the defence counsel noted that the prosecution did not provide evidence to prove the assault on Mark Kennedy Bush was untrue.
Based on the foregoing, the defence counsel suggested that the prosecution did not prove the case against Mark Kennedy Bush.
The defence counsel added:
… he was clear that he had no intention to make the operator think he would literally carry out the threat and remember his evidence he had been assaulted by his partner and he was angry.
There’s no evidence to rebut that. Chantelle isn’t here saying she didn’t assault him. Prosecution are asking [the jury] just to speculate.
Next steps
The jury is expected to return to court next week to hear the summation of the arguments by Acting Justice Palmer. After this, the jury will deliberate and issue their guilty or not guilty verdict.
