Chief Justice Anthony Smellie found Kirkland Henry and Larry Prinston Ricketts both guilty of murdering Estella Scott Roberts on the night of 10 October 2008.

Although over 70 people had gathered in Grand Court, the verdicts occasioned no outbursts. After court adjourned and the convicted men went downstairs into the cells, there were quiet tears and prolonged hugs as Estella’s family and friends comforted each other one more time.

The Chief Justice has already pronounced the sentence mandated by law – that the men be imprisoned for life. He gave his reasons in a judgment that took over two hours to read,

However, Solicitor General Cheryll Richards, who successfully prosecuted the case, noted that Henry had pleaded guilty prior to trial to the abduction, rape and robbery of their victim. Defence Attorney Nicola Moore advised that a similar indictment is outstanding against Ricketts, who pleaded not guilty to those same three charges.

The men are to return to court on Friday, 5 March for those matters to be dealt with.

The Chief Justice in giving his reasons noted that the verdicts had to be separate and he could not use Henry’s account against Ricketts.

He summarised events of that Friday night before the offences occurred, noting that Estella was celebrating her 33rd birthday with female friends at Decker’s Restaurant, having already celebrated with her husband two nights before. She was last seen walking toward the rear of a car park furthest away from West Bay Road.

It was there she came “face to face with terror,” the judge said, as she was abducted and then driven to an isolated area of West Bay where she was raped, robbed, killed and had her body incinerated in her car.

Henry claimed not to have participated in the murder and his lawyer interpreted Henry’s actions at the scene as withdrawal from the plan of the accomplice.

Instead, the judge said, by saying “It’s up to you” and then standing there and watching, Henry was giving implicit encouragement.  He showed no remorse about the fate of their victim; he had the presence of mind to elicit her PIN number from her for her bank card. Although he said he moved away when his accomplice burned Estella’s vehicle with her body in it, he then waited until his accomplice caught up with him.

Further, Henry had taken a picture of the victim that night; choosing to keep the image conveyed no sense of withdrawal or objection to her being killed.

Henry knew his accomplice had used a knife to cut her hand at the beginning of the incident; he had to be aware that serious bodily harm would probably result from their joint enterprise.

The evidence against Ricketts came from his own signed statement to police and from inferences drawn. The Chief Justice confirmed his earlier ruling that Ricketts’ statement was not concocted by police. He pointed out that it contained information not known to police at the time the statement was given.

Further, when questioned by Ms Richards, he said he heard about some lady getting burned up in a vehicle at Barkers. Ricketts said he heard that when he got to his job site on the Saturday morning, 11 October, when he worked from 8am until 1pm.

But the vehicle was not found until after noon that day. It was clear that Ricketts’ knowledge could only have come from his own involvement, the Chief Justice said.