Henderson, who remained at his seat in the dock after hearing the verdict, wept silently, tears running down his cheeks. His pregnant sister, however, was unable to control her emotions. She cried for her brother.

Henderson was accused of chopping to death Corozal resident Alfonso Esperidion Santos, 76, a.k.a. ?Mr. Chaps,? after a day of drinking with a group of friends sometime around 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 11, 2004, in the San Andres Layout area of Corozal Town.

The defense attorney, Simeon Sampson, had asked the prosecutor, Audrey Matura, for a disclosure on the matter earlier, when he had stated that his client would plead not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter, but Matura refused to accept such a plea.

As the prosecutor, Matura said that she had refrained from accepting such a plea because the prosecution had enough evidence and could prove that Henderson, although intoxicated on the day of the incident, intentionally murdered the elderly man. According to Matura, his actions, as she had shown in the testimonies of the witnesses, showed his capability for the crime committed.

On Tuesday afternoon, when the accused told his side of the story, he did not choose to do so under oath, instead standing up from the dock.

Only Judge Adolph Lucas was able to question the accused at this time.

Henderson, at the end of his recital of what happened that day, claimed that he did not remember committing the act. As he spoke with a serious expression on his face, he told the court that all he remembered was that he was drinking at a bar, and the next thing he recalled was waking up in a holding cell the following day.

His story was that on the morning of January 11, 2004, he had met with a group of friends and they began drinking from about 9:00. They were drinking strong liquor, he said, and in the afternoon he ate no food. Sometime between 2:30 p.m. ?3:00 p.m., he went with one of his drinking buddies to pick up his girlfriend at Tony?s Inn, but she was not ready, so the two of them went to Bay Inn, a bar, where they continued to drink. He claimed that at this time he was already drunk, because he had already consumed a lot of liquor.

But according to Henderson, there is nothing more he could recall of what had happened the day before. He had no recollection of how he got in the police holding cell, and the reason for being there. But while in the cell that morning, January 12, he recalled that he was taken up to Crimes Investigation Branch (CIB), where police asked him for his clothes.

They later told him that he was there because he was accused of killing an old man. He claims that at that moment he was surprised and shocked, because he could not remember that. He saw two of his drinking buddies who were being detained, and when one of them asked him if he did not remember what happened, Henderson said he told him, no, he had a blackout.

The prosecution?s case, however, was to show the court that it could convict Henderson on murder, and nothing else. The defense, Sampson, said that his client was too drunk to have intentionally chopped up the old man, and blames Henderson?s action on his level of intoxication, which, he said, needed to be taken into consideration.

Throughout the trial however, the prosecution, had called six other witnesses to the stand, making it a total of 12 witnesses by the end of trial. The prosecution closed its case on Wednesday morning at about 11:25, after a one-hour address to the court.

Within the four days of hearing testimonies from twelve witnesses for the prosecution, the defense had called only four witnesses, including the accused and one of his drinking buddies, Roque Gonzales. Sampson then closed his case that Wednesday morning shortly after, and in conclusion gave a half-hour address the following day.

Sampson told the court that he was not challenging the facts of the crime, but challenging whether the crime was murder or manslaughter. In conclusion, Sampson said that there is no evidence that there was provocation or molestation by Henderson. The only question is whether Henderson intentionally killed the old man, said Sampson.

The prosecution?s key witness, Enrique Martinez, 31, an ice-cream vendor of San Andres Road, told the court that he was riding his tricycle in the area around 5:00 p.m. when he saw the old man ride past him on a green BMX bicycle; seconds later he saw a young man on a bicycle come around the curve. He recognized the young man?s face; then after reaching a curve on the same road, he saw the old man picking up the bike; and then saw the same youth with a machete in his hand. The youth appeared to be drunk, because he almost swerved into him, Enrique, when he had passed him, said the witness.

The youth was behaving crazy, as if threatening Mr. Chaps, who was already hurt. Mr. Chaps managed to get on his bicycle and began to ride up the street, but he appeared to be hurt because he could not ride the bicycle well, he said. He was pursued by the same youth on the bike, and when he caught up with Mr. Chaps, Mr. Chaps fell to the ground and rolled in the drain.

The man stood up beside Mr. Chaps and began swinging the machete in a chopping motion, but he could not say if the machete was reaching Mr. Chaps.

The youth then picked up his bicycle and rode off with the machete in his hand, concluded Enrique.

Another key witness for the prosecution was Martin Armstrong, 15, a student who was around 13 at the time of the incident.

His recollection of what happened was very vivid because he was very close to the accused when he committed the crime, he said.

According to Martin, while walking home, he saw a young man he knew only by face, chopping up an old man. The old man was riding from the direction of his house and the accused he said was going in the direction of College Road.

Henderson was riding behind the old man, then at the intersection of Corozo and Cocoa Streets, he saw the accused push his bicycle into the old man; the old man fell off his bike; then the accused took a machete that was on his bike at the middle of the bottom bar and approached the old man, who was now standing, after getting up from the fall, and he began beating and lashing him with the machete.

The old man began to bleed from the forehead, he then fell to the ground again, but Henderson continued lashing the old man with the machete.

He said he heard the old man cry out to his attacker, saying, ?Ah nuh know why yuh deh chance meh, cause ah nuh gah nothing.?

The accused then spun the old man around and pushed his hands into his front pockets, then he spun him around again and pushed his hands into his back pockets. He found something and put it into his pocket, said Martin, then he began lashing the old man again.

A blue car passed the area same time, and the accused dropped the machete, then he picked it up and rode off on his bicycle, said Martin.

Another witness for the prosecution was the doctor who had examined the deceased, Dr. Mario Estradabran, who took the stand and told the court that on January 12, 2004, he conducted a post-mortem on Alfonso and observed that the old man had several chop wounds to the body. Estradabran said that on his forehead he had a 3-inch wound, and an 8-inch wound to the temporal area of the head. There were two 5-inch abrasions to the upper back, and a concussion point on the spine. All the wounds were as a result of a blunt or cutting instrument. In his conclusion, the direct cause of death was traumatic shock due to subarazhoid as a consequence of injuries to the head, said Dr. Estradabran.

When the forensic analysist took the stand, she told the court that no blood was detected on the machete. This was after analyzing the item with swab for presence of a human blood group, to compare with the blood grouping of the deceased and the accused.

Judge Adolph Lucas posed the question to the forensic analyst: ?If a machete is used to chop a person, shouldn?t you detect blood on it??

She said that if the machete was found quickly, it could have easily been removed by washing it with water or by wiping it.

Matura showed that Henderson intended to commit the crime, because at the crime scene, when the accused?s father had passed by and saw him, he had the machete in his hands, as one of the key witnesses had told the court in testimony.

He [Harvey Lee] still had the machete in his hand, and had recognized his father and spoke to him in a normal way, said Martin, the 15-year-old witness, but he had thrown away the machete when he saw a blue car pass in the area, he had then picked it back up after the car passed.

Matura told the court that this, in itself, showed that Henderson knew when to react, depending on who it was.

When the first officer, Cpl. Everiso Cob arrived at the scene, he told the court that upon approaching the scene, he saw Harvey Lee with a machete in his hand, but by the time he approached him he threw it into the nearby bush and dashed into the nearby yard and ran and hid behind a house into the yard.

Why did he run from the police and not his father when he was seen with the machete? If he was so drunk, how could he react in such as manner, said Matura.

Sentencing is scheduled for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.