The case of two people charged with a man’s murder will go to a jury today.Lawyers for Cleveland Rogers and Katrina Burgess told the Supreme Court on Friday that the evidence put forward by prosecutors could not support their “Lifetime movie” narrative.Ms Burgess and Mr Rogers deny the premeditated murder of Marcus Gibbings, whose body was found at his former apartment in Devonshire on October 26, 2006.Ms Burgess was the former girlfriend of Mr Gibbings and Mr Rogers is her half-brother.Prosecutors alleged that Ms Burgess paid Mr Rogers $5,000 to commit the murder which he confessed to two witnesses, both former girlfriends who cannot be identified for legal reasons.Marc Daniels, the lawyer for Mr Rogers, said in his closing speech on Friday that neither of the witnesses told police about the confessions until years later.He added that both came forward just before Mr Rogers was to be released from prison on an unrelated matter.Mr Daniels said that the women witnesses had admitted they spoke to each other about their allegations.He added the second witness “really had an axe to grind and she got information from the first witness, but that doesn’t make it true”.Mr Daniels said: “We know she got details that came from the first witness that didn’t come from Mr Rogers because all she asked was who and why.“It’s ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.”He said that phone records confirmed that Mr Gibbings spoke to Ms Burgess for just over a minute on the evening before his body was found.Mr Daniels added that the victim had spoken to his lover, a married woman, for more than 40 minutes the same evening.He said: “She has got some serious powers of persuasion that in 63 seconds she was able to tell her ex-man something that would persuade him to come to her home.”He added: “This is the Crown’s theory and this is their evidence. Does this evidence support their narrative or does it open the door to another type of narrative?”Mr Daniels said Mr Gibbings was excited about his new relationship and had told several people he wanted to take his new partner to Disney World with her children, despite the fact she was married.He said: “Marcus was so giddy, or slack, to be running his mouth to his colleagues all about this trip.“Bermuda’s small. People get wind of things. But I cannot guess a narrative about things based on a phone call; the Crown did that.”Charles Richardson, who appeared for Ms Burgess, said the jury could not consider the confession evidence because it would be hearsay.He said: “The Crown is trying to paint a picture of Ms Burgess with paints they are not allowed to put on her canvas.“If they had a case all this time that they felt was good enough, why did they wait 12 years to bring it?”Mr Richardson added that the rest of the evidence suggested no more than the breakdown of a relationship. He said: “In this case, somewhere in the midst of that unremarkably human experience of breaking up with someone, something remarkable happened, and that was that someone killed Mr Gibbings.“Don’t be misled to believe that this unremarkable break-up became a motive.“There is no evidence that remotely points to Ms Burgess as being responsible for Mr Gibbings’s death.”Mr Richardson said there was no evidence to suggest payment to Mr Rogers other than hearsay and that the injuries suffered by Mr Gibbings suggested a crime of passion.He said the killer “was motivated by more than just a bruised ego over a break-up or a few thousand dollars”.• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.