A verdict could be delivered as early as Friday in the murder trial of Everton “Beachy Stout” McDonald and Oscar Barnes, as Judge Chester Stamp began to sum up the case for the seven-member jury on Tuesday.

Justice Stamp’s summation is estimated to last three days.

“The manner in which you approach the witness evidence is of critical importance in this case,” the judge told the jury Tuesday.

McDonald and Barnes have been on trial since September last year for the murder of Tonia McDonald, the second wife of McDonald. On July 20, 2020 Tonia was stabbed multiple times and her throat slashed on the main road in Sherwood Forest in Portland. Her body, along with the Toyota Axio motor car she was driving, was set on fire.

On Tuesday the gaze of each member of the jury was glued in the direction of Justice Stamp who implored them to be careful when assessing the evidence from a former employee and confidante of McDonald and Denvalyn “Bubbla” Minott. Minott, who is currently serving a 19-year and 10-month sentence for his role in Tonia’s murder, confessed to the crime and accepted a plea deal from prosecutors. His end of the bargain compelled him to give evidence against McDonald and Barnes in court.

Minott claimed that McDonald hired him for $3 million and that he subcontracted the hit to Barnes, whom he alleges killed Tonia.

“Both of them are accomplices in the murder of Tonia. Both pleaded guilty to their roles. In this case, the former employee received a sentence of probation for a period of two years. Similarly, Denvalyn Minott entered into a plea agreement where he pleaded guilty to the murder of Tonia in exchange for his testimony and was sentenced with possible consideration of parole after he serves 10 years. He admitted that he had been convicted in the past for stealing. What all of that means is that the cases against them had been brought to finality by these sentences. Those cases are closed, that is the end of these charges and they cannot be brought up again so they have nothing to fear in respect to these charges. An accomplice is a party to a crime. An accomplice is a competent witness for the prosecution which means that, by law, an accomplice can properly give evidence and a jury may act on the evidence of that accomplice. The law requires that you view the evidence of an accomplice in a certain manner,” Justice Stamp told the jury.

“There may be cause to tell lies. An accomplice may have a motivation to give false evidence. An accomplice may want to curry favour the prosecution. An accomplice may be motivated to place the accused men in the worst-possible light and place himself in the best-possible light. An accomplice may minimise his own role and maximise and exaggerate the role of someone else. An accomplice may give completely or partially false evidence about another person’s alleged role in a crime,” said the judge.

He added: “I must warn you that there is a special need for you to view the evidence of these two men very carefully, with a degree of caution. Examine the testimony of each of them closely. I warn you that although you may convict upon the evidence of the accomplice witnesses, you may only do so if the evidence is corroborated by other evidence. Corroboration is evidence that is very admissible and credible, coming from a source which has the effect of implicating the accused men. It is for you to decide whether in any evidence there was corroboration.”

Justice Stamp said that although accomplices are not saints, they can turn out to be competent witnesses.

“The former worker cannot corroborate Denvalyn Minott and Denvalyn Minott cannot corroborate the former worker. When you consider their evidence you must remember that accomplices are not saints, but many times an accomplice may be the only person who associates close enough with a guilty person to have knowledge of the guilty person’s conduct. You have to be practical and realistic in your approach to the analysis of this evidence,” said the judge.

The trial continues today.