By Alric Lindsay
Today, February 10, 2025, the jury heard closing arguments in the George Ian Duffell murder case. The prosecution alleged that Lindsay Kirk Watler murdered Duffell, and the combination of Watler’s lies to the police and the discovery of Watler’s DNA under Duffell’s fingertips is sufficient evidence to find Watler guilty. Defence counsel disagreed and said the prosecution has failed to prove its case against Watler.
Prosecution’s arguments
According to the prosecution, Duffel was at Kelly’s Bar on October 14, 2022, when he left and headed toward Stadium Drive.
As Duffell was heading home, a man confronted him along Swallow Road and pursued him onto Hill Road. A police constable allegedly identified Duffel as the man being pursued but could not identify the attacker.
Allegedly, the pursuit ended in an altercation in a nearby yard where Duffel died.
Concerning the evidence, the prosecution noted that a trail of blood was found leading to the yard where Duffel was found.
According to the prosecution, a doctor’s findings indicated that Duffell sustained multiple injuries of varying severity, with two fatal wounds, a deep injury to the left side of his neck and a severe wound to the lower right chest, resulting in his chest cavity filling with blood. The doctor added that Duffell also had defensive injuries on both of his hands, indicating that he attempted to resist his attacker.
The DNA results showed that Watler’s DNA was found under the fingernails of Duffel’s right hand. This is what the prosecution used to link Watler to Duffell’s murder.
The prosecution emphasized that since the DNA recovered for Watler was in equal proportion to Duffell’s DNA, it indicated that there was a physical struggle between the two men.
The prosecution indicated that the DNA was reliable since it was the sample was taken in the early hours of October 15, 2022, after Duffell’s body was discovered. In addition, the doctor’s analysis determined that it was 420 trillion times more likely that the DNA belonged to Watler than anyone else.
After obtaining this evidence, Watler was arrested for the murder on Sunday, November 20, 2022.
The prosecution said that since his arrest, Watler gave no believable explanation for how his DNA ended up under Duffell’s fingertips.
Exacerbating the issue, the prosecution alleged that Watler lied to the police about his whereabouts.
Since Watler allegedly lied, the prosecution asked the jury to consider whether this meant that Watler was seeking to distance himself from the murder scene.
While Watler explained that he lied because someone came to his house and threatened him with a gun, the prosecution said that this was a made-up story.
The prosecution added that Watler’s suggestion that another man at the bar was linked to the crime was untrue since there was no forensic evidence connecting the other man to the murder scene.
The prosecution concluded that the DNA evidence paints a clear picture that Watler was present in West Bay on the night of the incident. However, he provided false and inconsistent statements regarding his movements that day.
In addition, the finding of Watler’s DNA under Duffell’s fingernails was consistent with a violent struggle. This led to the logical conclusion that Watler was the individual who attacked Duffell that night.
Based on the foregoing evidence, the prosecution said the jury could be sure that Watler was guilty.
The defence counsel’s closing arguments
Arguing on Watler’s behalf, defence counsel said there were weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
First, the defence counsel said the prosecution only has one piece of evidence, being the DNA mixture found on Duffel’s right hand.
This DNA mixture profile comprised three people: one consistent with Duffell’s DNA, another consistent with Watler’s DNA and the third consistent with other people who could not be identified.
The defence counsel refuted the prosecution’s evidence that the only way that Watler’s DNA was found under Duffell’s fingertips was due to a struggle between the two. Defence counsel suggested other explanations, including DNA transfer by various means.
For example, when the expert doctor was cross-examined, she accepted that there are various ways in which DNA can be transferred from its source to other places. That is, the DNA could have travelled directly from Watler to Duffell, or it could have gone via a surface, an object, or something else.
Regarding the above, defence counsel suggested that the DNA transfer could have occurred during an incident where it is alleged that Watler broke up a scuffle between Duffell and some other men.
In addition, it was noted that Watler and Duffell frequented similar places, and the two exchanged money. DNA transfer could have occurred that way as well.
The defence counsel highlighted that the expert doctor had also noted that the actual attacker might not have left any DNA at all. This could happen when gloves or long sleeves are used in an attack.
Given these scenarios around DNA transfers, the defence counsel stressed that the prosecution’s reliance on the DNA alone was not enough to convict Watler.
Beyond the DNA evidence, defence counsel noted that there’s no direct identification or confession or dying declaration identifying Watler as the killer. Further, no motive could be established by the prosecution for Watler wanting to murder Duffell. This was the case notwithstanding that police had over 800 days to figure out a motive.
Regarding motive, the defence counsel mentioned that there was one person that Duffell had problems with. That person was present at the bar Duffell was at on the night of his murder. He was also near the crime scene, hiding behind a column.
Lastly, the kitchen-type knife reportedly used in Duffell’s murder was not found in Watler’s belongings. However, one was seen on CCTV at the bar on another man with whom Watler had problems.
Adding to the doubts that Watler was the killer, defence counsel noted that it was unrealistic for Watler to overpower Duffell, who was six foot three and a half tall and a strong man. Not only was Watler physically weaker, he was suffering from a pulmonary disease, which would not have permitted him to chase Duffell down the way that a police officer described a person chasing Duffell that night.
Although Watler lied during his police interview, defence counsel said that being a liar is very different from being a murderer.
The defence counsel summarized all the evidence by saying that the prosecution’s case was solely on the DNA. However, more is required. In particular, there must be evidence to supplement the DNA. In this case, there was nothing to supplement the DNA under Duffell’s fingernails.
For example, neither of Watler’s fingerprints or footprints were found. In addition, Duffell did not say who the attacker was when he was lying on the ground, and Watler did not confess.
The defence counsel concluded that the jury should apply the burden and standard of proof in this case and determine if the prosecution met the relevant standard to arrive at a guilty or not guilty verdict.
Next steps
Regarding the next steps, Justice Richards is expected to do a summation of the facts in the case on February 11, 2025, after which the jury is expected to deliberate further.
